docs/78240: Replace <literal> with <quote> around a #

[Tom Rhodes]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:27:23 +0100
Marc Fonvieille <blackend at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:21:24AM +0100, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
> > 
> > > Yep.  I mean, we use literal everywhere else.  There shouldn't
> > > really be a reason to quote the specific character.
> > > 
> > > In all honesty, I guess it depends on how you look at it.
> > > 
> > 
> > In fact I was wondering about a typographic rule, I was wondering if
> > people used to put quotes cause they could not "emphasize" the character
> > via any rendering.
> > I just looked at a (french) typographic book, it seems (nothing is
> > stated) they use quotes for a single character, on another typographic
> > book no quotes...  I will reread them on tomorrow morning.
> >
> 
> Ok, here's the usage I found in the French "Imprimerie Nationale" rules
> ("Lexique des règles typographiques" ISBN 2-7433-0482-0):
> 
> - most of time use of italic for a character
> - sometimes use of quotes (in fact for more than 1 character)
> 
> I looked for American typography usage but on Internet it's not easy to
> find reliable information.  If someone owns the book "The Elements of
> Typographic Style" by Robert Bringhurst (ISBN: 0881791326)...
> 
> In fact it's often obvious that on a printed version using a specific
> rendering (italic, tt, etc.) is better for the reader, on an online
> version this may be different.
> I wanted to see what do O'Reilly, so I looked at at "DNS and BIND" (4th
> Ed.) expecting to find an answer, but I was disappointed they were not
> really consistent.  Most of time they use italic (for a word or a term
> it's always italic).  For a single character they use both italic and
> quotes, in fact it seems they use quotes when the italic version of the
> character does not exist or is "ugly"?  For example they used ``@'' and
> <italic>&</italic> (but also <italic>*</italic>).
> 
> Well to sum up, I did not find a good answer.

Let's just wrap it in <emphasis> and have done with it?

-- 
Tom Rhodes