Re: Using Org as the source format to generate org.texi

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> I meant @key alone (that's why above I said "outside @kbd").  What
> should happen with @kbd{@key{...}} is under debate, and I don't think
> it's anywhere as important as supporting @key conveniently.  AFAIK,
> currently Org doesn't support @key, or at least all of its instances
> in the Org's Texinfo manual were dropped when converting to Org.

{{{kbd(...)}}} is both @kbd{...} and @key{...}.

Anyway, it seems you did not answer to any of my questions. Or I may be
misunderstanding, of course. Currently, {{{kbd(TAB)}}} is translated as
@kbd{@key{TAB}}. Would it be better if it became @key{TAB} instead? Or
is "supporting @key conveniently" something else?

> It's up to you, but IMO underlining is not really appropriate.  New
> terminology should stand out like it does in other typesetting
> systems, and slanted typeface does a good job in this case.
>
>> Org -> LaTeX and Org -> Texinfo -> LaTeX are going to produce different
>> results and there is little hope they can converge at some point.
>> I suggest to not bother too much about this.
>
> That's not what bothers me.

Well, it seems to be, really. _text_ underlines "text" in other export
back-ends than Texinfo. In Texinfo, it would become @dfn{...}. So, what
apparently bothers you is the "Org -> LaTeX" or "Org -> HTML" both
underline text when Texinfo makes it a definition. However _..._ is
a definition only in Texinfo. Therefore, e.g., "Org -> LaTeX" is going
to be different than "Org -> Texinfo -> LaTeX".

In any case, let's forget about this, it was just an idea. One can still
define and use {{{dfn(...)}}} when needed.