![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Thought y'all would like to know that
fu has just pushed a hotfix that gives the tag navigation arrows their very own CSS class.
This snippet will banish them permanently - the tagnav class covers both the actual arrows and also that little bit of whitespace between the arrows and the tag links, so no worries about juggling layout.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This snippet will banish them permanently - the tagnav class covers both the actual arrows and also that little bit of whitespace between the arrows and the tag links, so no worries about juggling layout.
.tagnav { display:none; }
no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 04:37 am (UTC)Thank you for understanding/responding to the users, even if vitriolic in reactions, and thanks to
no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 04:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 04:49 am (UTC)Hah no worries! It wasn't at all made explicit before -- but I wanted to be sure to give credit where credit was due :D
no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-27 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-28 01:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-28 02:08 pm (UTC)What's happened is that on individual entries and tag-filtered list pages (and only those pages, so if you've only been loading read and unfiltered journal pages, that might be why you missed it), the "list of tags" at the bottom of the entry/entries now has some additional arrow links that take you to the next or previous entry with that particular tag. My original implementation of it was a bit clunky in terms of not having a CSS handle to manipulate just the tag arrows.
https://github.com/dreamwidth/dw-free/pull/947 is the original feature request, and https://github.com/dreamwidth/dw-free/pull/1153 for the fix that the OP is announcing, if you want to look at the code directly. :)
no subject
Date: 2015-01-29 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-30 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-02-21 12:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-02-27 01:15 am (UTC)