W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2003

Re: The <blockcode> and <l> elements

From: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:36:20 +1100
Message-ID: <3FA84604.2080202@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
To: ernestcline@mindspring.com
Cc: W3C HTML List <www-html@w3.org>



Ernest Cline wrote:

>>[Original Message]
>>From: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
>>
>>1. <!ELEMENT blockcode (l)*> OR
>>2. <!ELEMENT blockcode (PCDATA | l)*>
>>
>><snip/> (example program code)
>>
>>  For version 2, IMHO, it is not logical for some lines of code to have 
>>the <l> and other's to not.  Version 1, IMO, represents more 
>>semantically what program code is -- many lines, making up a code block.
>>    
>>
>
>Several comments:
>
>First, don't take away Inline as part of the content model for blockcode...
>
><blockcode>
>public static void <var>main</var>(String[] <var>args</var>) {
>    <var>System.out.println</var>("Hello World"); // Output <samp>Hello
>World!</samp>
>}
></blockcode>
>
This could still be done with <!ELEMENT blockcode (l)*> as the content 
model, (though each line would have to begin and end with <l>) since <l> 
can contain all the inline elements
...
<l><var>System.out.println</var>("Hello World"); // Output <samp>Hello 
World!</samp></l>
...

>>  Also, with the existing content model, it is possible to include 
>>virtually any element (all?) like <h>, <p>, <ul>, etc...  Real program 
>>code cannot contain headings, paragraphs or lists, only lines of code, 
>>therefore, the current content model is semantically incorrect.
>>    
>>
>
>A good argument against including the non-inline elements but not the
>inline.
>Even without the <var> and <samp> elements, I would still want to be able
>to apply other inline elements such as <em> and <span> inside of a
>blockcode.
>
I agree.  The second version should have actually been:
<!ELEMENT blockcode (PCDATA | Inline)*>
rather than just (PCDATA | l)*, I was just only thinking of the <l> 
element at the time and made a mistake.
CYA
...Lachy
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:36:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:09 UTC