[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Re: DocBook XSL 1.67.0 released
Jirka Kosek <email@example.com> writes: [...] > I don't see anything bad on usage of <tt> (and even <b> and <i>). > DocBook stylesheets uses (X)HTML as an output format used for rendering > in browser. DocBook has much more rich semantic then HTML so going from > DocBook to HTML is down-conversion and semantic is lost. I percieve > these <tt> vs. <code> vs. <xxx> and <b> vs. <strong> debates as > academical mental excercises. AFAIK there is no widely deployed and used > tool that can benefit from small amount of semantic that is gained from > <b> => <strong> shift. HTML is nowadays used as a solely rendering > language. If you want process semantic you will use original DocBook > source (or RDF, XTM, ...), not converted HTML. I agree completely with everything you've written. The problem I have is with the idea of mixing tt and code or mixing b and i with strong and em. We should do one or the other. There were a couple of open feature requests asking for b and i output be changed to strong and em, and for tt to be changed to code. And we seemed to have a consensus that those were not bad ideas. So the changes were made.