Re: [RFC] New "kbd" macro?

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Rasmus <rasmus@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.

WDYT?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou