[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Feb 20 08:38:07 PST 2016
On 2016-02-20 17:29, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2016, at 2:48, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> 9.63. <tt>
>>> This element is directly rendered as its HTML counterpart.
>> but <https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features>:
>> 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
> seems easy.
Well, replacing it with <kbd> wouldn't be sufficient, because not all
cases of <tt> would be valid uses of <kbd>.
> For historical reference, the design team discussed this back in October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.
Well, <tt> in the xml2rfc vocabulary is a distinct issue. We could keep
it, but we can't require it to be mapped to HTML's <tt> when we also
require it to be valid HTML5.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest