grammar terms are indistinguishable from defined terms

[burblebee]

This issues was raised by Gaby - that you can't tell definitions from grammar terms, because both are italics. Maybe use _bold italics_ for one of those - like the definition?

[burblebee]

I would be happy to take this, but I'll need guidance from the group as to what font to use.

[zygoloid]

Chosen approach is to change grammar terms to be sans serif slanted (\sffamily, \textsf).

[jensmaurer]

This depends on #701.

[tkoeppe]

Sans-serif (whether slanted or upright) wouldn't be a terrible solution. Maybe we could test-drive that change and see how we feel about it. Sample boards welcome.

[jensmaurer]

Now that #701 is addressed, we can make progress here. A sample for [class] is attached. Note p5, where we have all the different typefaces in one sentence.

[jwakely]

I like it.

[zygoloid]

Just playing with \tcolorbox:

[jensmaurer]

Well... I just had a look at the \tcolorbox manual, and the table of contents looks ... wow.

I think the fundamental question here is whether we want to leave the realm of traditional black-on-white printer-style typesetting or not. (Maybe ISO Central Secretariat has an opinion, too.) If the former, we should (for example) consider boxing all the examples and notes, as well as the grammar snippets and the itemdecls.

At the current state of black-on-white, boxing the \grammarterms (and nothing else) seems misguided to me, and hurts my eyes: "Here is a large blue boxed \grammarterm. Better pay attention. We will throw it right in your face. But we didn't bother to box the grammar definitions, sorry about that."

[tkoeppe]

I think the typographical principle of minimal distinction applies here: if we're changing the typeface, then we don't also need to make it italic. Try just upright sans-serif for the grammar terms, I bet that looks good, too.