[Doc-SIG] Some random thoughts

[Laurence Tratt]

David Ascher wrote:

>> Sorry, I should have made myself clearer: genuine <tt> (typewriter style)
>> markup. I think there's a need for both. 
> Can you justify it a bit better?  IMO, <tt> is like <bold> -- it's
> presentation tagging, not content tagging.  Note that I think that *this*
> and **this** should correspond to <emph> and <strong> or vice versa, not
> <bold> and <italic>...

Someone (Eddy or Tibs I think - I'd do a search but netscape & leafnode
don't get on in this respect) mentioned that there are instances (and gave
examples, I think) when one wants something to come out in the <code> font
but not have a guess-the-Python-identifiers scan run over it. In the same
way that I always mentally substitute italics for emph, I'd substitute
code-font-without-substitution for tt; so long as the functionality's there
in some way, it doesn't really matter what it's called.


logical-font-styles-are-probably-great-for-logicians-ly y'rs - Laurie