W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Proposed W3C Spec Conventions

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:47:32 -0800
Message-ID: <4B0D6DB4.7070804@inkedblade.net>
To: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
CC: www-archive@w3.org
Doug Schepers wrote:
> 
>> Also, IMHO <code> should also be acceptable
>>    in place of <i> when marking up bits of code rather than bits of
>>    English.
>>
>> 4. Use <code> for your code markup, not <span>. That means attributes,
>>    elements, values, etc.
> 
> IIRC, <code> wasn't consistently stylable, which is why the SVG WG used 
> the more complicated nesting of <span 
> class="attr"><code>foo</code></span>... if there aren't issues anymore, 
> I'd be very happy to simplify the markup (which I have done in the new 
> draft).

I have no idea what issues you were having with <code> not being styleable.
I've never run into such problems myself.

Maybe you're complaining about things like
     <code><pre>...</pre></code>
not working? That would be because the markup is invalid.

> I actually made a typo by leaving them out in the example, which I've 
> now corrected.
> 
>> Did you know!? <code> can accept the 'class' and 'id' attributes.
> 
> Yes, I sometimes do that, but didn't in the rough draft document since I 
> was trying to show code in an example block.  I could make an example 
> that uses just <code class="foo">, if you think it would help clarify.

Code in an example block should be inside a <pre>, certainly. What
I'm objecting to is the things like <span class="..."><code>...</code></span>
that you had. The span is excessive.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 17:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:36 UTC