[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Feb 20 09:04:46 PST 2016


On 2016-02-20 17:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2016, at 8:38, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 2016-02-20 17:29, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 20 Feb 2016, at 2:48, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-html-rfc-02#section-9.63>:
>>>>
>>>>> 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>.
>
> What do you mean by "all cases of <tt>"? It is currently defined as:
>          Causes the text to be displayed in a constant-width font.
>          This element can be combined with other character formatting
> elements, and the
>          formatting will be additive.

Example from draft-iab-xml2rfc:


<section xmlns:x="http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext" 
anchor="element.abstract">
     <name>
        <tt><abstract></tt>
     </name>
     ...

So if your proposal is to replace <tt> by <kbd> in xml2rfc, and the same 
in the HTML draft, we'd end up with something like:

   <h2><kdb><abstract></tt></kdb></h2>

How would that be consistent with the HTML5 definition:

"The kbd element represents user input (typically keyboard input, 
although it may also be used to represent other input, such as voice 
commands)."

?

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list