[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sat Feb 20 08:29:43 PST 2016
On 20 Feb 2016, at 2:48, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 9.63. <tt>
>> This element is directly rendered as its HTML counterpart.
> So that's a requirement to produce invalid HTML...
We could easily fix this by getting rid of <tt> in the XML and replace
it with <kbd>. Given that <tt> isn't in the v2 grammar, this change
For historical reference, the design team discussed this back in October
2014 but didn't come to consensus and then kinda forgot about it. At the
time, we were leaning against any presentational elements like <strong>
and <em>, so we dropped the subject, but then later heard enough input
to add <strong> and <em> but we forgot to revisit the fact that <tt> is
deprecated in HTML 5.
More information about the rfc-interest