Re: [rfc-i] Update on the CSS - second round

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Martin (and Heather),

I completely disagree regarding the TOC on small screens. I like that
wherever I am in the document, I can open the TOC, refer to it, scroll it
up and down, and then if I close it without clicking on a link, I’m back in
the exact same place in the document.

That said, in Sample 3 v2, I’m also seeing the TOC scrolling bug in Safari
on my iPhone 6s. If I scroll the TOC beyond its limits (either up or down),
the main document starts to scroll.

One other small bug with the hamburger TOC button - as you scroll up on the
main document, the hamburger icon slowly scrolls up as well, and less and
less of it is visible the further down you go in the document. When I reach
the bottom of the document, the button almost completely disappears.

One other TOC bug I noticed on the iPhone - if I’m reading, say, section
2.1, then use the TOC to jump to section 5, if I then use the browser’s
“back” button, I leave the document rather than go back to section 2.1.
However, this works correctly on Firefox on my Mac - the back button takes
me back to section 2.1.

Cheers,
Andy




On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 21 February 2017 at 17:52, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > https://rfc-format.github.io/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> I checked these out on phone (with a decently large screen), desktop,
> and print preview.  These are all massive improvements and you seem to
> have found good resolutions to the issues I raised, thanks.
>
> I don't think that the change to use Javascript for the table of
> contents on narrow views is an improvement.  It effectively removes
> the TOC from the document.  As a regular reader of these things, I
> need to see the table of contents.  Having to click or tap ruins that,
> especially since the button is on the very edge of what I can easily
> hit with my fat digits.
>
> On narrower screens, leaving the TOC inline (where it would otherwise
> appear in the text version) is better.  The little hamburger icon
> could then be a link to the TOC.  That wouldn't require Javascript
> either, though that's not my overriding concern.
>
> The other issues that I saw were all problems with the source.  For
> instance, the double-comma Brian observed was in the HTML source and
> easily corrected.  The precis document also uses something that
> appears to be a badly formatted definition list in the IANA
> considerations, but that turns out to be straightforward text with
> irregular spacing.
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest