Re: kbd and similar command within code

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:27:26PM +0000, Karl Berry wrote:
>     @file is now <samp>.
> 
> I don't understand.  We want @file to be like @code, not like @samp.
> (I.e., no quotes in TeX or HTML.)  Right?

@samp is not <samp> it is <samp> + quotes.  Maybe <samp> is
better than code for particular things as code.  Currently it is used
for @file and @option.  But I guess it would be better to use it for 
all @command, @env, @file, @option or for none, and use <code> for all.
A preference?

>     Well, that's pretty easy (to be honest, now that's pretty easy), 
> 
> How can one test "if the current font is monospace" in HTML?

If one is in one of the @-commands that are code-like (@code, @command,
@file...) or in @example.

> 1) By default, in TeX, @kbd uses slanted typewriter, thus
> distinguishable from regular (upright) typewriter.

Ok.  I'll use <i> then?

> 2) In Info output, I guess @kbd should use angle brackets after all, as
> you have it (I think).  I just checked the Emacs manual, and in the
> 
> So we should keep following that.

That's the case.

> By the way, regarding code-inside-code stuff, in the Texinfo manual I
> just came across this paragraph:
> 
>   In Info output, @code{@@kbd} is usually the same as @code{@@code},
>   producing `quotes' around its argument.  However, in typewriter-like
>   contexts such as the @code{@@example} environment (@pxref{example})
>   and @code{@@code} command itself, the quotes are omitted, since Info
>   format cannot use distinguishing fonts.
> 
> So at least @kbd inside @code should not produce quotes for sure :).

That's exactly that manual fragment that started this thread...

-- 
Pat