- From: magick <jasper.magick@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:45:38 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
> > From: Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com > <mailto:peter.krantz@gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Re%3A%20samp%2C%20kbd%2C%20var%20and%20code&In-Reply-To=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E>> > > Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:51:17 +0200 > > On 8/23/06, Toby Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk <mailto:tobyink@goddamn.co.uk?Subject=Re%3A%20Re%3A%20samp%2C%20kbd%2C%20var%20and%20code&In-Reply-To=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E>> wrote: > > > > Yes -- this is mostly my point. XHTML 2 still has too much compsci stuff > > in it. I can see how <code> can be useful: I use it myself frequently, > > which is why it's not in the subject line of this thread. > > > > I am sorry but "code" is not part of a generic document markup format > even if you personally find it useful. As covered earlier, the > extensibility of XHTML2 makes it easy for you to add whatever module > you may require for your domain. > > code and blockcode should be removed with samp, kbd and var. Is there > anyone on this list that can argument for their existence? > Reference sites, and sites that give example code for something. W3 has the potential to use <code> and <blockcode> effectually. Giving example for code in XHTML2 such as this example: <code> <p src="hello.jpg">Hello</p> </code> That is an obvious reason for <code> to be useful. It lets human readers know what that line of text is, it's code for something.
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 17:46:52 UTC