> What is the markup to which you allude here? Please elaborate,
> because I don't think I understand what you mean.


I just checked the source and output files. Here's an example.


This an example code in the orignal texinfo file:


  In this example, point is between the @samp{a} and the @samp{c}.

  @example
  @group
  ---------- Buffer: foo ----------
  Gentlemen may cry ``Pea@point{}ce! Peace!,''
  but there is no peace.
  ---------- Buffer: foo ----------
  @end group
  @group
  (string (preceding-char))
       @result{} "a"
  (string (following-char))
       @result{} "c"
  @end group
  @end example



This is the HTML output and as you can see the example markup is kept
here in the form of a pre+class:


  <pre class="example">
       ---------- Buffer: foo ----------
       Gentlemen may cry ``Pea-!-ce! Peace!,''
       but there is no peace.
       ---------- Buffer: foo ----------

       (string (preceding-char))
            &rArr; "a"
       (string (following-char))
            &rArr; "c"
  </pre>



Here's the emacs info version, no trace of the example tag here:


  In this example, point is between the ‘a’ and the ‘c’.

       ---------- Buffer: foo ----------
       Gentlemen may cry ``Pea★ce! Peace!,''
       but there is no peace.
       ---------- Buffer: foo ----------

       (string (preceding-char))
            ⇒ "a"
       (string (following-char))
            ⇒ "c"




So if I'm not mistaken when the emacs info files are created, the
@example tag is dropped completely from the output. If this is the
case then it could be better to keep the @example tags in some form in
the emacs info output too and hide them with a face, for example. 

If the tag is kept then the source code examples in the info
documentation can get a face, so their appearance can be
customized. Without the tag it's not possible, because there is no
info in the file about where the code examples begin and end.