Re: [AD] Screen destruction documentation update

[Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:49 +0200, Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:

> Yeah, blame that on makedoc and not the artsy type who created your
> font. But fixing a font is something too hard to do, right? Lets
> consider this change:

All fonts display ' as '. You would need to use ´ if you want it to
match with `. But that is about as hard to type for most people, as ` on
a German keyboard :P But if you use ``quoted´´ instead of the current
``quoted'', the argument about the odd look of ._tx is settled :)
Remains just the hard typing.. which alone is a reason to remove it for
me.


> -              fputs("<tt>`", _file);
> +              fputs("<code>", _file);

Can it be something like: fputs("\"", _file); ? Both <code> and <tt>
change the typeface, which never looks nice.

> The problem with that, as I argued before, is that you loose quotes
> for text browsers, and since that's the only thing for text browsers,
> you are degrading the content. IIRC I did a test with <q> and the
> result looked not too bad for both types of browsers, but that's
> abusing the semantics of the HTML spec.

I'd just use ", it's what most HTML pages do.

> I guess this can't be avoided forever. So what type of
> pretty-html-quotes you want to see? While we are on that, what do
> we do about other? Like ", * or _ still in use.

I would only use " for quting. The * and _ I'm not sure, but we should
have one consistent way. E.g. always <b>bold</b> or always *bold*, but
not mixed.

-- 
Elias Pschernig