Template talk:Rule

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Simplified code[edit]

On the lines of using only the hr tag without being nested in a div, I made some minor edits and shortened the template to this:

<hr style="background-color: #000; color: #000; {{#if:{{{width|{{{1|}}}}}}|width: {{{width|{{{1}}}}}}; |}}{{#switch:{{{align}}}|left=margin: 2px auto 2px 0|right=margin: 2px 0 2px auto|#default=margin: 2px auto}}; {{#if:{{{height|}}}|height: {{{height}}}; }}{{#if:{{{style|}}}|{{{style}}};|}}" />

You may notice I changed the margins. Using the div tags originally added some space due to the CSS defined in the site's stylesheet. This approximates it, though it can be changed, of course.

I tried to use it in every way defined by the original template and haven't found differences yet, other than that the div codes are now gone. Any feedback is welcome. The Haz talk 18:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Rule width when greater than 100%: add max-width?[edit]

This template doesn't work well when the specified width is greater than the parent width. This often happens with long rules and small screens (e.g. mobiles and e-readers).

I think adding "max-width:100%;" to the CSS will help here. This would "cap" the width at the parent container's width and stop the otherwise-fixed width rule from spilling over the right hand margin. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the majority of cases where a fixed rule width is specified, the intent of the editor is to limit the rule to some portion of the page-width less than 100%. Perhaps Inductiveload's proposal would be improved by (say) making max-width:80%? 07:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A very good point. I suppose there are two kinds of rule:
  • Where the length is derived from something else, like a title, when you may want 100% (because on a small screen the title would also go to 100%). These are common on title pages.
  • Where the intention is "some but not all of the page", where around 80% would retain the feel. Common for section dividers.
The problem is that this template is used for both and there is no semantic markup to work out what was meant. Perhaps a max-width parameter would work? I don't know what the default should be. 100% would be most similar to the current behaviour. Either way, the difference would only be seen on very small screens/wide rules, and therefore only small (as 20% of small is small) so I don't have strong feelings either way. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a small semantic hint, in that {{rule}} or {{rule|100%}} imply the new max-width: ought to be set to 100%; {{rule|x%}} where x>100% leads us back to the basic problem reported (editor being silly?)…
In fact any {{rule|p%}} where width is specified proportionally should scale correctly anyway. It is fixed em, px etc values which happen to exceed the value of 100% which are problematic — and only a javascript query or perhaps clever use of CSS3 calc() function can detect that…
Needs further thought and investigation! 08:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)