Normative: add normative optional styling css override

[codehag]

This addresses the problem brought up in #2214 -- where the styles for normative optional changes were forgotten (by me) when the weakrefs merge pr was made.

This likely isn't the best way to do this. This pr is here in case we need a stop gap solution until we clarify how best to add these styles in an accessible way. cc @bterlson, @ljharb, @michaelficarra, @syg and @bakkot.

[michaelficarra]

Screenshot:

[syg]

We should be explicit about what the unit of optionality is. @codehag Could you add a sentence explicitly defining the unit of optionality to be everything within a Normative Optional colored box?

[codehag]

let me know if that is what you had in mind...

Also, were there any thoughts about the point @erights raised about this needing to be visible even without css, or is this not likely to be an issue? One suggestion I can think of is that any section (ie 2.1 here) is followed by "Optional" or something to this effect. Then we can drop the prepend text from the css?

[ljharb]

We were thinking that ecmarkup can insert the full “normative optional” text explicitly.

[codehag]

I applied the changes manually. github seems to have some issues applying comment suggestions atm.

[syg]

I applied the changes manually. github seems to have some issues applying comment suggestions atm.

That feature has never worked right for this repo, something to do with permissions like if the suggester has write access or something, it breaks.

I also find that suggestions generate these unreadable emails since the spec source has very long lines.

[michaelficarra]

@syg @codehag I think it might have something to do with spec.html being very large, in the same way that expanding the context around a diff to spec.html fails.

[michaelficarra]

This WFM for now. When we get ecmarkup generating the "normative optional" text for these sections, we can remove the :before pseudo-element selector.

[bakkot]

LGTM, thanks! I'll upstream the CSS into ecmarkup at some point.

[codehag]

I'm not quite used to the work flow: do I merge after 3 approvals, or do you? Or do we need one more?

[michaelficarra]

@codehag We will handle it.