Re: [docbook] <emphasis> in <code>; syntax highlighting

[Michael Smith <smith at xml-doc dot org>]

Instead of <emphasis>, why not just use another, nested <code> or
a <literal>? e.g., <code>foo <code role="prgkey">bar</code></code>

  --Mike

"Justus H. Piater" <Justus.Piater@ULg.ac.be> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> Is there a reason why <emphasis> is not allowed inside <code> (or,
> %gen.char.class is not part of %cptr.char.mix;, or whatever)?
> 
> I think there are many legitimate uses for that, and I miss it
> badly. In general, I think that <code> should allow all
> inline-formatted content that <programlisting> allows.
> 
> Likewise, it would make a lot of sense to allow <emphasis> inside
> other %cptr.char.mix; clients such as <userinput> and
> <computeroutput>.
> 
> Can an appropriate change be put into V4.3?
> 
> 
> This is actually part of a bigger need of mine: I put lots of program
> code examples into my lecture slides. Lacking tags for (program)
> keywords, operators, comments, strings etc., I (ab)use <emphasis> for
> syntax highlighting, using roles such as "prgkey", "prgcomment" etc.
> 
> It would be nice to have tags for such things. On the other hand,
> quite a few of those would need to be added in various places, adding
> substantial complexity to the DTD. This seems to be a prime candidate
> for a future extension module of a modular DocBook.
> 
> For now, using <emphasis> may not be all that abusive, if you view it
> like the term syntax *highlighting* indicates: visual sugar for a
> human reader.
> 
> Justus
> 

To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.