- From: Simon Siemens <Simon.Siemens@web.de>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:54:49 +0200
- To: XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
In this mail I try to summarize the previous discussion and to focus on open points for the future discussion. Currently we have the following situation: 1. The contents of "code" and "blockcode" should be render as preformated text by default (independent of the value of an "codelang" attribute). 2. Code search engines would have a big advantage of a "codelang" attribute. (The XHTML specification could mention this.) 3. Developers would have an easier life, if they could install browser extensions that can handle specific code languages. (The XHTML specification could mention this.) 4. It is an open point of discussion, how the code language is specified. /Maybe/ the MIME type is an option. All in all a "codelang" attribute would increase the semantics of the "code" and "blockcode" tag and would be of benefit for user agents in the "world of coders" using the Internet. -------------------------------------- There are two ways to handle the content of the "codelang": -- 1 -- MIME types describe the content of container in a standardized way. Searching the Internet let to the following results: The IANA manages the MIME types. Everyone can register a new MIME type at http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl . There you can also find the most interesting RFCs in this situation: RFC 2046 describes the naming scheme behind the MIME types and RFC 2048 how new MIME types are registered. Currently I can find MIME types like text/css text/xml application/xhtml+xml application/postscript application/vnd.adobe.xfdf application/vnd.kde.kword application/vnd.wap.wmlscriptc I guess it would be no problem for a code language community to register their own MIME type. However it was interesting to find, that there is no MIME type text/javascript defined, although this is often used (even by the W3C). Thus the MIME type system might not be as fixed as it might look like. But it mostly works just fine! -- 2 -- On the other hand we could use a naming scheme on our own. Defining the 30 most popular code languages would serve as a good base. Finally authors will agree on one or two variants for each code language, because they want to be found. It's similar to meta data in HTML. We have "keyword" and "keywords", and everybody uses one of these, because he wants to get indexed by search engines (I don't start a discussion about the algorithms, search engines use ... ;-)). And keep in mind, that "text/javascript" seems not to be registered by the IANA ... All in all I think, that both variants have their own advantages and drawbacks. And I also believe, that both would work in practice. Simon
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:54:52 UTC