Moved to wikitech-l as we've gone to the minutiae of implementation rather than policy. :)
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
Tables are predictable and dependable. CSS often isn't. ;-) But it's probably safe to use it by now.
If we don't encourage users to use browsers that support CSS, they'll have no incentive to not drive us fricking crazy with their stupid broken browsers. :)
A nice named div will allow skins to be flexible with the TOC placement. In a sidebar, perhaps, whatever...
<a name="Culture/Blecchistan">... <a name="Language/Blecchistan">...
[snip]
But not if the hierarchy is changed, and we would still have to retain the numbering feature for H2 dupes. Also, these anchor names could get very long, especially for H4 anchors.
Yes, all these are reasons why I don't like generating anchor names from header text. :) Whatever you do, they remain fragile. Nice explicit anchors would be better, though of course your fiendish table of contents needs automatic ones anyway, so oh well. :)
and by default are faded (so seemingly partially transparent on the solid background) until a mouseover darkens them up to full visibility?
Hm, can you demonstrate that?
Off the cuff, something like:
<div class="sectionedit">[<a href="blahblah">Edit</a>]</div>
.sectionedit { float: right; color: #ccc; /* light gray text */ font-size: 0.8em; } .sectionedit a:link { color: #ccf; /* light blue link text */ } .sectionedit a:hover { color: #00f; /* darker, brighter blue */ }
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)