OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [docbook] <emphasis> in <code>; syntax highlighting

Instead of <emphasis>, why not just use another, nested <code> or
a <literal>? e.g., <code>foo <code role="prgkey">bar</code></code>


"Justus H. Piater" <Justus.Piater@ULg.ac.be> writes:

> Hi,
> Is there a reason why <emphasis> is not allowed inside <code> (or,
> %gen.char.class is not part of %cptr.char.mix;, or whatever)?
> I think there are many legitimate uses for that, and I miss it
> badly. In general, I think that <code> should allow all
> inline-formatted content that <programlisting> allows.
> Likewise, it would make a lot of sense to allow <emphasis> inside
> other %cptr.char.mix; clients such as <userinput> and
> <computeroutput>.
> Can an appropriate change be put into V4.3?
> This is actually part of a bigger need of mine: I put lots of program
> code examples into my lecture slides. Lacking tags for (program)
> keywords, operators, comments, strings etc., I (ab)use <emphasis> for
> syntax highlighting, using roles such as "prgkey", "prgcomment" etc.
> It would be nice to have tags for such things. On the other hand,
> quite a few of those would need to be added in various places, adding
> substantial complexity to the DTD. This seems to be a prime candidate
> for a future extension module of a modular DocBook.
> For now, using <emphasis> may not be all that abusive, if you view it
> like the term syntax *highlighting* indicates: visual sugar for a
> human reader.
> Justus

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]