Consistent usage of CSS on different pages

[+MuS162]

Dear Groundspeak-Team,

 

thank you for your great work in constantly improving the quality of the geocaching.com-website!

 

As the community grows, more and more geocachers make use of HTML to format their cache-listings. But there is still a major issue that restricts the way of formatting such a listing: there are different stylesheets used on different pages! This may be a serious problem for geocachers that take a printed copy of a listing on their cache hunt. Some parts of a HTML-formatted listing are NOT readable in the intended way after printing it out.

 

Of course it is a common way to use different CSS-stylesheets on websites, e.g. on GC.com there is one for the regular listing of a geocache and one for the printing page. But is there a specific reason why there are two different font-styles and different rendering of specific HTML-tags used for these two pages? It would be nice if the same CSS-styles could be used for both pages (including fonts, margin and padding of tables, etc.). For example, at the moment it's not possible to use HTML-lists in the printig page although they can be used in the regular listing of a geocache.

 

Please have a look at the following example. The following HTML-code:

<p>This is an unordered list:</p>
<ul>
<li>First</li>
<li>Second</li>
<li>Third</li>
</ul>
<p>This is an ordered list:</p>
<ol>
<li>First</li>
<li>Second</li>
<li>Third</li>
</ol>

... is rendered as follows on the regular cache listing page:

 

But on the print page it is rendered as follows:

 

... one should see the difference ...

 

E.g. to make ordered HTML-lists printable one has to use HTML-tables and instead put the numbers there manually. This is fine as long as a cacher prints out the listing, but the description of a cache will be messed up for cachers with special paperless-GPSr-devices (i.e. Garmin Oregon).

 

Thanks in advance for your reply!

 

Best regards

MuS162

[+Corey]

I've tried to force bullets using CSS but HTML Tidy wipes that out too.

[+MuS162]

*push*

[OpinioNate]

We revamped the print-friendly page for this next release and our designer is somewhat confident this problem is fixed. After the release we'll have a look and decide if a bug needs to be opened.

[+MuS162]

It seems that there already was a release some hours ago, but the metioned discrepancy has not been solved

[+MuS162]

*push*

[+MuS162]

We revamped the print-friendly page for this next release and our designer is somewhat confident this problem is fixed. After the release we'll have a look and decide if a bug needs to be opened.

Even if there were two or three major releases in the meantime this issue is still not fixed. Please have a look at it again.