From owner-freebsd-doc  Thu Aug 24 13:50: 7 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2EA37B424
	for <freebsd-doc@freebsd.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id NAA39941;
	Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200008242050.NAA39941@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Cc: 
From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>
Subject: Re: docs/20028: ASCII docs should reflect <emphasis> tags in the source
Reply-To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

The following reply was made to PR docs/20028; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>
To: Rasmus Kaj <kaj@raditex.se>
Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: docs/20028: ASCII docs should reflect <emphasis> tags in the source
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:49:36 -0700

 On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:53:02PM +0200, Rasmus Kaj wrote:
 > 
 > Well, *foo* looks like bold to some, but isn't, really. Same goes for
 > /bar/ ...   So, while I'm in favor of <strong>foo</strong> -> *foo*
 > and <em>bar</em> -> _bar_ or /bar/, I think <b> and <i> really should
 > be ignored when font controll isn't availible.
 
 I think I agree here.  If we changed the style sheet to output either
 <em> or <strong> when it seems the DocBook <emphasis> tag and then hack
 w3m to produce either some variation on *foo* when it sees that tag then
 we'd accomplish the task of translating <emphasis> to something visiable
 in ASCII docs and avoid screwing things up that actually do use <b> or
 <i> for typographic reasions.
 
 > Also, you may want to make it possible to disable this stuff in
 > certain tags, for example, if you have an example command line that
 > looks like:
 > 
 >   % *rm* /junk/
 > 
 > ... then there is bound to be some questions about that ... :-)
 
 That's a style sheet issue.  In this case we probably shouldn't be
 writing <strong>rm</strong> <em>junk</em> as html output because that's
 not what we mean.  In this case we really do mean <b>rm</b> <i>junk</i>
 because this is purley a typographical convention at this point not a
 symantic markup.
 
 > That said, I agree with the basic suggestion that it would be nice to
 > have e.g. <emphasis> render visibly in plain text.
 
 My prefrence is for a result that <emphasis> renders in the *baz* style.
 I think what I'll do is hack up some patches to <emphasis> translates to
 <em> and w3m translates <em> and <strong> to *.
 
 -- Brooks
 
 -- 
 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message