Code Section 2.3 illustrates some commonly used XML syntax examples. The oddity occurs where the example shows the <i> tag, which seems to be a replica of the <c> tag. Further below, Code Section 2.4 shows the output of section 2.3, and below, only explains the <c> tag, but gives no mention to the <i> tag. Both tags work, however, and both produce the same HTML output when run through xsltproc. I believe either the <i> tag should be explained, or replaced with the <c> tag to avoid confusion. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
Well, this is done for a reason. We have both tags, because one could be used for code blocks, and the other for plain emphasis. The reason that the HTML is the same, and only one of the tags is documented is flexibility. We keep both of these tags so that if we want to change something in the future, it can be done easily.
