Michael Smith wrote:
> I think some users might not be as happy with it, because then
> they would be forced to style it via CSS, while now, with
> <code class="filename">, they get a default rendering for it that
> most would find reasonable, I think.
>
> I know "code" is not the best name for marking up a filename. But
> there's nothing else close in the set of "phrase elements" that
> HTML provides. And going back to using presentational markup like
> "tt" seems much more wrong to me.
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.
Of course situation is different if you use (X)HTML as your primary
authoring format, then there is an advantage of using more semantically
oriented elements. But we DocBookers know that there is so little
semantic in HTML that we use DocBook. ;)
Jirka
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jirka Kosek e-mail: http://www.kosek.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Profesionální školení a poradenství v oblasti technologií XML.
Podívejte se na náš nově spuštěný web http://DocBook.cz
Podrobný přehled školení http://xmlguru.cz/skoleni/
------------------------------------------------------------------
