Suggestion: add [tt] markup tag

jonaskoelker · 12-15-2005, 01:13 PM

Hi all.

It may just be meing typing \tt and \texttt and too often, but I think LQ lacks a `tt' (teletype) tag. True, there are the code tags, but they really disrupt the text flow. Example:

Define your own operator new which counts allocations.

versus

Define your own

Code:

operator new

which counts allocations.

There are other bad solutions:

using [ font="courier new" ]my code snippet [ /font ]. This has the [em]very[/em] bad side effect of making clients render the text in courier new instead of their preferred teletype font.
not doing anything: this might potentially make it unclear what's code and what's not.

In short, I see no good alternatives to a [tt] tag when that's what I need, so I propose it be added.

Kind regards,

Jonas Kölker

PS. I would also like to see [em] be added (it shows, doesn't it?).

titanium_geek · 12-15-2005, 02:38 PM

purist! i instead of em works well.

I tend to use bold for code when telling people what to type ie:
ping your IP address (italics show what they should fill in, not type directly) or cd ..

and the code tag for long lengths of code.

titanium_geek

jonaskoelker · 12-15-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

and the code tag for long lengths of code.

Agreed.

However, using i and b instead of em and tt seems like a kludgey workaround. I'd rather see things done right\footnote{I'm one of those folks who thinks web markup is only getting worse}.

Or have user comments be run through \texttt{latex2html}

Jonas Kölker.