> What is the markup to which you allude here? Please elaborate,
> because I don't think I understand what you mean.
I just checked the source and output files. Here's an example.
This an example code in the orignal texinfo file:
In this example, point is between the @samp{a} and the @samp{c}.
@example
@group
---------- Buffer: foo ----------
Gentlemen may cry ``Pea@point{}ce! Peace!,''
but there is no peace.
---------- Buffer: foo ----------
@end group
@group
(string (preceding-char))
@result{} "a"
(string (following-char))
@result{} "c"
@end group
@end example
This is the HTML output and as you can see the example markup is kept
here in the form of a pre+class:
<pre class="example">
---------- Buffer: foo ----------
Gentlemen may cry ``Pea-!-ce! Peace!,''
but there is no peace.
---------- Buffer: foo ----------
(string (preceding-char))
⇒ "a"
(string (following-char))
⇒ "c"
</pre>
Here's the emacs info version, no trace of the example tag here:
In this example, point is between the ‘a’ and the ‘c’.
---------- Buffer: foo ----------
Gentlemen may cry ``Pea★ce! Peace!,''
but there is no peace.
---------- Buffer: foo ----------
(string (preceding-char))
⇒ "a"
(string (following-char))
⇒ "c"
So if I'm not mistaken when the emacs info files are created, the
@example tag is dropped completely from the output. If this is the
case then it could be better to keep the @example tags in some form in
the emacs info output too and hide them with a face, for example.
If the tag is kept then the source code examples in the info
documentation can get a face, so their appearance can be
customized. Without the tag it's not possible, because there is no
info in the file about where the code examples begin and end.