GNU bug report logs -
#16439
[feature request] Highlighting of strings within Info buffers
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org>
> Cc: drew.adams <at> oracle.com, ruediger <at> c-plusplus.de, 16439 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, sva-news <at> mygooglest.com
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:09:19 +0200
>
> > I agree, and didn't say anything to the contrary. I told about the
> > slant typeface as an evidence that what came out of @dfn should be
> > emphasized in some way.
>
> I don't understand the difference between using @dfn and double quotes,
> e.g. why in the source of the chapter "The Organization of the Screen":
>
> The main area of the frame, below the tool bar (if one exists) and
> above the echo area, is called @dfn{the window}. Henceforth in this
> manual, we will use the word ``window'' in this sense.
>
> the different styles are used for @dfn{the window} and ``window''?
The former is terminology, the latter is just a word.
> But if both were written in the Info output using DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK
> as “window”, then in the Info browser we could emphasize such terms
> using the slant typeface and put invisible properties on quote characters.
That should be OK, I think.
> Then if code blocks such as e.g. in @code{("/foo" "/bar" @dots{})}
> were written using simple quotation marks e.g. ("/foo" "/bar" …)
> then it would make sense to highlight quoted strings in Info
> in code samples using `font-lock-string-face'.
That'd be OK as well, IMO.
> This problem doesn't exist in HTML output that keeps all different source
> styles unambiguous, e.g.:
HTML is a markup language, Info is not.
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 248 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.