[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 10:58:58 PST 2016


On 21/02/2016 05:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
> 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.

And this is IMHO not an aesthetic issue in our context. It's a technical
requirement - we want certain text in rendered RFCs to be rendered in a
constant-width font. I think we should be able to express that without
being forced into a purist view of the distinction between semantics and
presentation. Constant-width font *is* the semantic, if you like.

How it is rendered in HTML is a separate matter.

    Brian

P.S. /tt was originally defined in LaTeX as "typewriter" style (a bit
unfair on some typewriters) and the comment in RFC1866 is
<!-- <TT>       Typewriter text                         -->


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list