|
|
Posted by ironcorona on 07/05/58 11:46
Jose wrote:
> Were I to DESIGN the code tag, I would design it such that whatever was
> inside the code tag would still be able to be marked up, because
> browsers that do not support the code tag would present the content as
> is, and I would expect the web designer to have the option of marking it
> up appropriately for such a case.
>
> Were I to USE the code tag, I would expect what's inside to be
> interpreted as HTML and require escape codes to display characters that
> would otherwise be "live".
I disagree. What else, then, is the point of the <code> tag if not to
be used to display the exact content of the tag (as opposed to the
marked up version). People don't usually use scripts (or whatever) to
search through HTML documents to parse the contents of a <code> tag in
order to extract the code itself and since the tags are not meant to be
read by humans (after the browser gets hold of it) it seems weird that
you would have ANOTHER tag that sets out an area.
Most of those old tags should be depreciated because you can you the
"class" or "id" attribute to mark off specific areas, as per the ideal
of separating style from content: using <span> or <div> in conjunction
with CSS is just as useful.
<code> would be much more useful to show areas of plaintext which the
browser doesn't mark up.
--
ironcorona
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|