Open Stack

Hi all,
It's not about the look, but that both <literal> and <emphasis> don't
really describe the content. Generally speaking, emphasis is frowned upon
by semantic markup because it's not meaningful. In the case of the patch
Christian's working on, the content is "Limitations" and there are enough
of them that are described in brief and in depth that probably Christian
should just convert the list to a table with headings: Limitation and
Description. That'll help readers scan the output and the markup isn't so
vague as emphasis. Christian's been doing good work on converting lists to
tables, so I think that's the solution here as well.

Christian, does that sound good to you? Tom and Stephen and other
knowledgeable docbook markup folks, does that markup sound right to you?

Thanks for bringing it to the mailing list, it's a good conversation to
have while we have lots of cleanup.
Anne


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just bringing the discussion from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39712
> to the mailing list.
>
> In the patch, emphasis tags are changed to literal tags for better
> readability.
>
> Since these tags have semantic backing, and we could potentially change
> the look for them later, I thought it was worth discussing on the
> mailing list.
>
> So - how do you feel about how emphasis tags look right now in HTML and
> PDF? How should we make it better?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-docs mailing list
> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>



-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20130804/e7f9f342/attachment.html>