[whatwg] <code> attributes
ddailey at zoominternet.net
Wed Apr 29 13:46:23 PDT 2009
On Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:16 PM, Jacob Rask wrote:
> has there ever been any discussion on including an attribute to the
> code element, specify the programming language in the markup? If so,
> what was the conclusion? I didn't find anything in the list archives.
Having just converted a 200+ page document with a lot of in-lined code to
HTML , I found myself
rather taxed by the limitations of <code> , so while I like your suggestion
(which does seem
to appear in the draft spec ) , I need to offer some observations of my
(disclaimer: I may well have been working on incorrect assumptions)
1. Having to type <pre><code><tagname></code></pre> seemed a little bit
silly to me:
is there a use case for *not* wanting <pre> when doing <code>? Could that
not be handled as an attribute of the <code> if so?
2. having to escape "<" as < in the middle of <code> seems like work for
the author that could just as easily be handled by the browser. In the old
days, <xmp> worked pretty well... why no replacement for its functionality??
3. trying to style a <code> so that it would have an indented margin, a
border, a default font-style (monospaced), preserve within -line
indentation, and work consistently across browsers seemed to defy my humble
abilities with CSS. (see
as an example of the very clumsy solution I ultimately opted for -- IE still
doesn't preserve within-line indentation in this solution-- it used a styled
table with a styled td and was particularly gross!.)
4. if we could just write
it'd be nice to have the page render the HTML just as is.
5. Some of the good folks on either whatwg-irc or htmlwg-irc let me know
that <code><p>happy</p><p>sad</p></code> was bad form, and that I should use
<pre><code> instead. It never would have dawned on me that the first was bad
form, nor that the second would be good form. (maybe it should have dawned
on me, but I speak html sorta like I speak english, more through habit than
training, and not very formally at that). Second the introduction of <p>
within <code> was actually generated by a robot that converted a bunch of MS
Word to <html> so someone other than me must have thought it was a good idea
to do it that way.
More information about the whatwg