Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:49:36 -0700
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
Message-ID:  <20000824134936.A12283@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
In-Reply-To: <84og2jnd69.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>; from kaj@raditex.se on Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:53:02PM %2B0200
References:  <200007190554.WAA12534@minya.sea.one-eyed-alien.net> <20000823182835.A25522@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <84og2jnd69.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000824134936.A12283>