feature request: include entire notes history with proposals

[ctcpip]

Problem: it is difficult (to varying degrees depending on circumstances) to track down the plenary notes for a given proposal. for example, if you wanted a complete picture of the discussions for a proposal, you'd have to search the agendas repo and/or the notes repo using imperfect search functions. compounding this issue is that sometimes the proposals change names.

Solution: we already include the 'last presented' notes links in the tables; it is just as easy to, instead of replacing the 'last presented' link with the latest notes every time a proposal is presented, simply add a new link. this adds no additional work than we are already doing today.

we should also endeavor to do this retroactively, but that shouldn't stop us from adopting this change right now for future notes links

#508 demonstrates this change in action. see rich diff

[ljharb]

The concept is excellent. It'd be ideal to find a way that won't shred the layout of the tables - do <details> work inside a table cell?

[ctcpip]

shred the layout of the tables? it doesn't affect the layout any more than how multiple champions on a proposal affects the table

[ctcpip]

we could also just have the links be 0,1,2, etc. as opposed to the entire month and year. or shorthand them to 2024-02 style, and/or remove the <br> and just comma-delimit

[ljharb]

right but every proposal will likely have at least 4 notes links, whereas most proposals only have one champion.

[ctcpip]

right but every proposal will likely have at least 4 notes links, whereas most proposals only have one champion.

Temporal has entered the chat

[ctcpip]

February 2024
0,1,2,3,4,5,6

look how many mini-notes can fit into one mega-note! 🎶

[ljharb]

I think 2024.02, 2023.12, etc might be clearer to read (also inside a sub)

[ctcpip]

sub makes it 10.5px which is awful for a11y. edit: <sub> in md rendering comes out to 12px which is a lot better. I had originally tested <sub> in a comment, which: _{renders as 10.5px. 😢}

❌ 2024.02
✅ 2024-02

[ljharb]

why is that awful?

(what's wrong with the dot? it's fine either way here, ofc)

[ctcpip]

are you asking why a < 8 pt font size is poor a11y?

[ctcpip]

in any case, it appears GH renders the <sub> size differently in different places.. let me double check with a test md file.

edit: confirmed. (see edited comment)

PR example updated: #508 -- rich diff

[ljharb]

Yes, I'm asking that, because that entirely depends on the eyes of the viewer and the quality and size of their screen. If someone can't see small text, they'll turn up the font size on their device and/or zoom in.

[ctcpip]

Yes, I'm asking that, because that entirely depends on the eyes of the viewer and the quality and size of their screen. If someone can't see small text, they'll turn up the font size on their device and/or zoom in.

right, but it's not good to provide a usable font size and then _{add some ridiculously tiny text that they have to increase the zoom on just for the text, and thus impacts all other text, layout, etc.}

_{in any case, it doesn't matter because the sub font on md is acceptable enough}

[ctcpip]

tangentially, this is as good a time as any to complain about GH's max width, which is terribly small and reminds me I need to install the GH wide userstyle on my new workstation 😊