IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 21 February 2017 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9C4129409 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bQ0PBAYs2Uxh for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E904B1294B8 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24CEB820EF; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69881B820F1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ITbv2zvBQbQR for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 558C8B820EE for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id x35so40023435qtc.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=A/7nqV2E4PUI/KstgrttxUMfeoTrQuwQW5crvJrcB4M=; b=maod4hlZrz8qHVco2VCY1kGPadO8pNMMso8MjlwD7LQ1xfJwrAnTgO0dK74pDibGPP P8hIA013ycKvhXV/ZWb8axsAMalQVDl7oCHcddJ6w5KHx9FjWQt0w+6njIuUI6629g32 luBkKob7KeB4vXvgNJSIrDVJQKbEj3e968dCgP5Bic5n761hnOVgC701hj56d+srgg1N rCSofvNgTNrSEqLQaGSZbZjZXbmM2gNKceVY8acf4UT0D1pdszCwmWe6dW5W2ZNsIMpB /UG86bDgoOaBFl/0DoIMoMjGU+Xc6JVLZ1FqwTi2ijCdvTzgpTSOb3iP5qv/mmuomPzq i9Ew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=A/7nqV2E4PUI/KstgrttxUMfeoTrQuwQW5crvJrcB4M=; b=ivxtS/r8e9opv7kS+4oV4SJGO7UrkRCh82t+ADxO7O6vTRd59LG8zsjp7GT2QwGf/T N+tOkwbArkKSGk++nAi44/HFM5HRhgF2bPhwUkEmmKVFYDYqjmojIcYwRaozI/yN4WiG f2bS4Fqq+qWSBOO/L7ssMEAXu+1aFRlLDY9iSYJt9aZ2UeXtmxllUwb75m0OGC6TZEEs 2QkYDpjKV7wjabOtny0QKJZDpDDzbgN5PRGUlTFCP+6JyRAtEhAbykBusGzo6E6/MEN2 3O1GdYX7ErDUNfIDaRnrYzSmVhcVh5t4zJp2bTB2iwQUN/CgB9LWKRfQV42+6IMxcnj4 Rehw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mCjKFFQkNx5d5eS3aXXhoimg3y7eZ74DvQgyscazXJ10tD7Nw98CrPcS6ZoqeSaQ==
X-Received: by 10.237.40.39 with SMTP id r36mr26691563qtd.282.1487690465207; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g66sm8404920qkb.55.2017.02.21.07.21.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <ecad592d-2123-bf84-6c6e-22531136afd7@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:21:01 -0500
Message-Id: <013D3DF8-3AB6-4E00-9456-6EF82D961DA3@fugue.com>
References: <ecad592d-2123-bf84-6c6e-22531136afd7@rfc-editor.org>
To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Update on the CSS - second round
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

One issue that I noticed when playing with sample 3 is that scrolling the table of contents starts scrolling the document when you get to the end.   This is a bit of a usability problem, but I don't know if there's a way to fix it in the CSS.   The reason it's a usability problem is that a single flick on the TOC gets you to the end, and the momentum carries over to the document, resulting in a substantial scroll of the document.   The two should be completely independent; otherwise, the utility of the TOC is limited, because I'm going to tend to shy away from using it for fear of losing my place in the document.

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email