W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > March 2015

Re: <code> element and scripting languages

From: Martin Janecke <w3.org@prlbr.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:50:31 +0200
To: "Andrea Rendine" <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xwbcqhzs4j822h@localhost>
Am .03.2015, 15:32 Uhr, schrieb Andrea Rendine  

>> I'd like to have input by UA makers whether they have interest and use
> for that and how it should be designed best to be usable for them.
> So would I, indeed.
>> Not much. But what does that tell us?
> It tells us that we need consistency. And @class cannot give it. It is  
> not
> meant as an enumerated attribute, and as such it is used quite freely.

I agree, @class isn't well suited for a consistent semantic solution.

>> Does use of additional parameters suggest that a new attribute providing
> only an identifier for the code language would not be sufficient for  
> syntax
> highlighter markup?
> No. Gorbatchev' syntax highlighter parameters offer a series of features
> which are pretty much stylistical (
> http://alexgorbatchev.com/SyntaxHighlighter/manual/configuration/), such  
> as
> HTML/script mixture (but nested <code> would do it better), line marking
> (it'd be better to use proper HTML inline marking), link detection (if a
> link is to be meant as a link, it'd be better to use a link); nothing  
> that
> cannot be solved with CSS or additional markup (more complex, but also  
> more
> semantically relevant).

Ah, that's good.

>> A non-canonical (and pretty useless) attribute occasionally seen in the
> past does not convince me
>> There are no strong semantics implied in class="language-python".
> Those arguments are not towards semantics, rather in the direction of
> common use. Actually, @codelang is quite neat instead.


Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 13:50:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 March 2015 13:50:57 UTC