Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
>
>> I am not sure where it makes sense to print in "plain" text as opposed to
>> code or verbatim by default. Anyway, I think it makes sense to add
>> specific export mechanisms for several backends, which might make it
>> possible to remove that argument.
>
> Plain text allows user to define its own environment. I'm not against
> forcing ~...~ on keybindings when no specific syntax is required.
>
>> - HTML, MD :: as Kaushal points out, please use <kbd>.</kbd>.
>
> This is (almost) already the case.
>>
>> - LaTeX :: it’s complicated, as e.g. keys needs to be translated in a
>> specific
>> way, depending on the package that is being used, e.g. "libertinekey",
>> "menukeys" or whatnot. We should not add new default packages IMO. We
>> could always support a couple of different packages, but default to
>> something like "\fbox{\ttfamily %s}". Adding support for other packages
>> reduces to mapping specific sequences, like "SPC" to something like
>> "\LKeySpace".
>>
>> - ODT :: it should be possible to use something like Biolinium or
>> Libertinus keyboard fonts if we just have an alist mapping sequences
>> like CTRL to the right unicode symbol (E.g. U+E173 here), but the place
>> in the font would probably depend on the font. So unless there’s a
>> standard it would be risky. Since fonts aren’t (typically?) embedded in
>> ODT it might be better to add a new odt style that prints the words in
>> the mono font inside a box, i.e. the equivalent of "\fbox{\ttfamily %s}".
>
> For those back-ends, I think, e.g., ~M-<RET>~ is a good default. It is
> very close to what Texinfo can produce. The "fbox" thing seems a bit
> heavy.
I quite like the fbox look, but it would — perhaps – be rather heavy
inline!
How about making it a format-string for LaTeX and a separate style for
ODT? Then you could change it on a document-basis if needed.
Rasmus
--
Dung makes an excellent fertilizer
