[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Feb 22 09:55:32 PST 2016
<sourcecode> can also be used inline in a bunch of places.
I agree that if <tt> remains in v3, the HTML doc has to change.
On 2/20/16, 11:58 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
>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 -->
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest