- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:39:30 +0100
- To: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
- Cc: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, Linking Open Data Mailing List Data <public-lod@w3.org>, "Semantic Web Mailing List" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it> writes: > Hi Marynas, > > first of all, thanks for your comments! > > A couple of answers, motivating why we didn’t originally choose to use the HTML elements you suggested: > >> A couple remarks regarding HTML: >> <p class="code"> could be <pre><code> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-CODE <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-CODE> > > Basically, it was made on purpose as a design choice. In RASH we wanted to > keep everything much easier, in particular when defining similar behaviour in > different contexts (e.g., in inline elements and in block elements). If we use > the full HTML approach as you suggested, I should use different tags for > defining codes. In particular: > > Inline code definition: > <p>This text contains a <i><code>call to a function in italics</code></i> as an inline element.</p> > > Block code definition: > <pre><code>This is a full block of code</code></pre> > > As you can see, to have both situations I should use at least two additional > elements of HTML (and thus I should have to extend RASH). In addition, to > define block code, I should use *two* elements together. Still, the <pre><code> combination is recommended in the HTML5 documentation. And tools like prism.js, for instance, support it out-of-the-box. Simple is important, but not if it introduces complexity elsewhere. Phil
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:40:01 UTC