W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2004

[whatwg] Syntax Highlighting [was: several messages]

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:47:17 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412131835410.18787@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

>>> [ added <textarea accept="text/x-whatever"> ]
>> [ useless! take it out! ]
> [ could be useful! leave it in! ]

I have no strong opinion either way on this.


I can see the argument for, namely that it gives metadata much like <meta 
name="author" content="Foo Bar"> gives metadata, and that there is no 
requirement for the UA to do anything with it since it is merely a hint.

The way it is defined now, it just says what _kind_ of text is expected in 
the textarea, so that in future UAs can do something with it if they want.

It's also very cheap as far as the spec goes, taking just one paragraph.


I can also see the arguments against (indeed I originally argued it 
shouldn't be added because of these), namely that it won't be implemented, 
can't be tested, and should therefore be cut.

The way it is defined now, it is just as useless as <meta>: UAs will never 
do anything with it.

It's also just confusing to have this in the spec without clear use cases.


Please argue this amongst each other and come to an agreement as to 
whether the feature should be kept or not. Before publishing the next 
version of the spec, if there isn't a clear agreement, I'll look at the 
arguments and if there is no clear strong argument on either side, will 
probably just flip a coin and either remove the feature or leave it as 
the coin decides.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 13 December 2004 10:47:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:38 UTC