bug-texinfo
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: imbrications and ---


From: Karl Berry
Subject: Re: imbrications and ---
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:05:58 -0500

Hi Pat,

    I get somehow strange results with the following command imbrications:

    @@address@hidden@@address@hidden@address@hidden: @address@hidden
    @@address@hidden@@address@hidden@address@hidden: @address@hidden
    @@address@hidden@@address@hidden@address@hidden: @address@hidden
    @@address@hidden@@address@hidden@address@hidden: @address@hidden

Yes, I can't say I'm surprised.  The fact that there are inconsistencies
between the different processors is certainly a bug, but the correct
behavior is not easy to determine.  Here are some of the complicating factors:

1) in its present incarnation, texinfo.tex doesn't do nested styles
   (except for some cases of tt + slanted/italic).  This is partly because:
2) there is no standard bold typewriter font.
3) Thus, prompted a previous bug report some time ago, the HTML was
   (painfully) changed so that it did not do nested style stuff either,
   so that the same Texinfo input would produce (closer to) the same
   appearance in HTML and TeX.
4) I changed @cite recently in texinfo.tex to unconditionally use \sl,
   never \ttsl.  I could not imagine when anyone would ever want to have
   book titles printed in typewriter.
5) Mixing physical and logical markup seems a rather dubious practice
   in general.  I'm not sure I want to define what happens when @b is
   mixed with @command, or @cite with @command.  The combinations don't
   make logical sense.  @b with @i or @t, yes.

So, I'm not sure what behavior to try to converge to.  What do you think?

Although I wouldn't mind doing nested styles by default, that's a big
change in texinfo.tex and won't happen any time soon.

Thanks,
karl




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]