Jirka Kosek <> 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.
