Equivalent of <pre> tag about pretext HOT 9 CLOSED

 would be more generic.

I am giving my students here at AIMS lots of "stuff" they can cut/paste out of

an assignment into Sage worksheets.  Mostly entries of semi-big matrices (list

of lists of numbers).  Not program statements, perhaps code, more

computer-specific than just 
.

Suppose you provided a small data set to a reader.  20 rows, 6 numbers to a row.

Formatted so it could be cut/paste without loss (eg, minus signs are not some

Unicode dash, as sometimes happens in PDFs).  What would you wrap that in?
Rob
On 16/01/2015 14:53, davidfarmer wrote:

Yes to your first question, and that is probably the most

common example of tag abuse. (Or maybe it is  for .)

We need  because sometimes emphasis is just emphasis.

But we need to train people to use the semantic markup when it is

available, and alert us to cases where we may need a new tag.
Let's hope nobody thinks to suggest , , and <C++>

tags in place of the generic  tag! (You may want an

optional language="python" attribute to .)

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Rob Beezer wrote:

On 16/01/2015 14:20, davidfarmer wrote:

I see an analogy with  and .

So if I understand right, it would be tag abuse if I were to use  on

a defined term? Because I am simply using the tag to gain the visual formatting

that I think a defined term should have? So we have  to prevent tag

abuse? And need 
 to prevent more.

Is it abusive to have an  tag in the first place? I would argue not, but

on first reading I thought this might be what you meant by "use

a tag merely for the side-effect of having its contents appear with the

desired visual appearance."

Rob
—

Reply to this email directly or view it on

GitHub.[AAM6LCk4Fhp7LprwW9PNpjKRUk-hAEK9ks5niPzmgaJpZM4DTL9R.gif]

—

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

https://github.com/rbeezer/mathbook/issues/21#issuecomment-70249592.