- 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>
Am .03.2015, 15:32 Uhr, schrieb Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>: >> 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. :) Martin
Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 13:50:57 UTC