Re: replacing acronym and tt HTML elements

[Gavin Smith]

On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 03:29:22PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I think that for @t, it would be better to use
> <span class="t"> and have span.t => font-family: monospace; as I propose
> above, as @t has no semantic interpretation of code.  (For all the other
> places where we used <tt> before, <code> is most likely better.)

In practice, where @t is used in manuals, <code> is appropriate.  I checked
this a while ago after downloading hundreds of Texinfo manuals.  I added
this text in the manual after this:

>    The ‘@t’ command can occasionally be useful for producing output in a
> typewriter font where that is supported, but no distinction with
> quotation marks is needed in Info or plain text.  (Compare ‘@t{foo}’
> producing foo with ‘@code{foo}’ producing ‘foo’.)  Here are some
> possible reasons for using ‘@t’ instead of ‘@code’:
> 
>    − The argument is a single character
>    − There are already quotes of some kind enclosing the argument
>    − It’s evident from context or the argument itself that the argument
>      could be computer code (e.g. name of a Usenet newsgroup)

Using an HTML tag <code> is better than using CSS because it means
the text will be distinguished even in the absence of CSS; for example,
in a terminal browser like Lynx, or if the CSS is disabled or missing
for some reason.

> 
> > If there is anywhere left in texi2any which outputs <tt> (not from @t),
> > then we could consider it case by case.
> 
> there was a place, table term within @example.  For that <code> seemed
> better to me.

OK.