[TYPO3-doc] Small improvements to official documentation template

[Daniel Bruessler]

Hello,

it's really nice to see, that italic in the tables' left side is really
enough.

The reason we decided for Tahoma in doc_template was that this is
available on Linux + Mac + Windows.

We can add the needed fonts - and add a HowTo for installing the fonts
for Mac + Linux + Windows. So it's no problem. We really need three
fonts (small in tables + serif for main text + monospace for filenames).

About ending this: It's really a very good change now - and we can
optimize it again in three or five years. So we can come to an end.

Cheers!
Daniel


> Hi folks,
> 
> Here goes the next version:
> 
> http://drp.ly/1IiXef
> 
> Changes:
> 
> - following the discussion about the tables, I made something close to
> Hermann's 5th proposal, but went for italics instead of bold for the
> "main items" in the table. I think it's quite ok and far nicer on the
> eyes than bold.
> - about being able to distinguish between "1" and "l" in URLs, I
> experimented with various monospaced fonts. I was pretty happy with
> Lucida, but the good variants are only commercially available. So I went
> for Vera Sans Monospace which gives very good results for preformatted
> text IMO and is a open source font.
> - this was starting to make a lot of fonts, so I changed all the
> headings to use Vera Sans instead of Tahoma. It's a bit wider, but I
> don't think that makes such a difference.
> - which brings me back to the tables: inside the cells themselves, the
> font used is Arial, but it's very compact, which is good for such
> tables. I tried to move it to Vera Sans too and the result is just not
> good. So I think we're stuck with three fonts, which is a bit much
> according to typography's golden rules, but I'm not sure we can achieve
> better without actually having to buy a large font family (like Lucida)
> which would give us all the variety we need but would be a license
> nightmare with so many contributors.
> 
> To be complete I should mention that the topic of changing the manual's
> template has been on a separate agenda for a couple of days now, but
> I'll make a separate post about this. Suffice it to say here that I
> think we have reached a pretty satisfying result for now. More could be
> achieved but would require a change of process IMO. I think we should
> settle on a template soon, because there are some new manuals pending
> and some older ones that need an update.
> 
> I'm not trying to close this discussion prematurely (and - again - I'm
> very happy about it), but it could potentially last for a very long time
> (although opinions have not diverged very much), so we should try to
> bring it to a close in the not so far future.
> 
> Cheers
>