[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Sat, 20 February 2016 17:13 UTC

From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 18:13:29 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5
In-Reply-To: <85EA172C-26D6-4708-8CA4-EF73E253C7F1@vpnc.org>
References: <56C84484.2000902@gmx.de> <DE3016C2-86EA-4019-9D00-DF585DFB90D4@vpnc.org> <56C8966F.3050102@gmx.de> <9D53D262-B079-49B1-BDEF-63882E9703DF@vpnc.org> <56C89CAE.6030802@gmx.de> <85EA172C-26D6-4708-8CA4-EF73E253C7F1@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <56C89EB9.1000802@gmx.de>

On 2016-02-20 18:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Fair enough. So, what's your proposal to fix the problem you brought up?

I brought it up primarily as a problem in the HTML spec. That one could 
be fixed by requiring to use <span> instead of <tt> (with appropriate CSS).

Right now I don't think we need to kill <tt> in xml2rfc, but we could 
think about adding more specific ones that could be mapped to their HTML 
counterparts. But that should be driven by RFC-related use cases, not 
some kind of HTML-feature-completeness.

Best regards, Julian

[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Julian Reschke
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Carsten Bormann
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Riccardo Bernardini
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Paul Hoffman
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Julian Reschke
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Paul Hoffman
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Carsten Bormann
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Julian Reschke
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Paul Hoffman
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Julian Reschke
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Brian E Carpenter
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Joe Hildebrand jhildebr
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Paul Hoffman
[rfc-i] <tt> vs HTML5 Julian Reschke