Re: Proposed W3C Spec Conventions

Hi, fantasai-

fantasai wrote (on 11/25/09 12:47 PM):
> 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.

Yup, I totally agree, but there was some reason the SVG WG was doing 
that... Cameron reflected it in his build script, so I think it was 
still the case just recently, but with him on hiatus, I don't know the 
rationale.

In any case, I was happy to simplify it... let me know if the new markup 
is to your satisfaction.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 18:50:04 UTC