Rather than <blockquotewhy not <longquoteor better yet <quote
length="long">?
I think it captures the semantics better. I'm making it block because it's long.
Thoughts?

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:12:30PM -0400, Adrian wrote:

Rather than <blockquotewhy not <longquoteor better yet <quote
length="long">?

I think it captures the semantics better. I'm making it block
because it's long.

I use block quotes because they contain paragraphs, or blocks of code
- i.e. becuase I'm quoting blocks - not due to their length.

7/7/05, David Dorward <david (AT) dorward (DOT) me.ukwrote:

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:12:30PM -0400, Adrian wrote:

Rather than <blockquotewhy not <longquoteor better yet <quote
length="long">?

I think it captures the semantics better. I'm making it block
because it's long.

I use block quotes because they contain paragraphs, or blocks of code
- i.e. becuase I'm quoting blocks - not due to their length.

If that's the case then wouldn't <codeblockor <quoteblockbe more accurate?

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:22:12PM -0400, Adrian wrote:

I use block quotes because they contain paragraphs, or blocks of code
- i.e. becuase I'm quoting blocks - not due to their length.

If that's the case then wouldn't <codeblock>

If I'm quoting code? No. Although it might be useful to have a block
element for holding code. Currently I use a <prewith a <codeinside
it. Although I would probably still use an inline code element inside
that as sometimes I have several nested <code(e.g. with classes
"xml", "tag", "attribute", "value", etc) since that provides an
elegent way to attach syntax highlighting in a stylesheet).

or <quoteblockbe more accurate?

A block that is quoted, or a quoted block. Makes little different
really. I'd stick to blockquote to avoid needless (and confusing)
differences with HTML 4 element names.

7/7/05, David Dorward <david (AT) dorward (DOT) me.ukwrote:

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:22:12PM -0400, Adrian wrote:

I use block quotes because they contain paragraphs, or blocks of code
- i.e. becuase I'm quoting blocks - not due to their length.

If that's the case then wouldn't <codeblock>

If I'm quoting code? No. Although it might be useful to have a block
element for holding code. Currently I use a <prewith a <codeinside
it. Although I would probably still use an inline code element inside
that as sometimes I have several nested <code(e.g. with classes
"xml", "tag", "attribute", "value", etc) since that provides an
elegent way to attach syntax highlighting in a stylesheet).

or <quoteblockbe more accurate?

A block that is quoted, or a quoted block. Makes little different
really. I'd stick to blockquote to avoid needless (and confusing)
differences with HTML 4 element names.

Since that would be such a minor point I would have to agree here. If
we decide to stick with this, consistency much rule the day.

7/7/05, David Dorward <david (AT) dorward (DOT) me.ukwrote:

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:22:12PM -0400, Adrian wrote:

I use block quotes because they contain paragraphs, or blocks of code
- i.e. becuase I'm quoting blocks - not due to their length.

If that's the case then wouldn't <codeblock>

If I'm quoting code? No. Although it might be useful to have a block
element for holding code. Currently I use a <prewith a <codeinside
it. Although I would probably still use an inline code element inside
that as sometimes I have several nested <code(e.g. with classes
"xml", "tag", "attribute", "value", etc) since that provides an
elegent way to attach syntax highlighting in a stylesheet).

Is there any reason <codedoesn't assume preformatting? I've never
seen code that doesn't require preformatting to be readable.

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:38:32PM -0400, Adrian wrote:
Is there any reason <codedoesn't assume preformatting? I've never
seen code that doesn't require preformatting to be readable.

Well, its an inline element for a start. That sort of white space
handling is generally reserved for blocks, and if <codebecame a
block it would throw my nested <codetechnique right off.

I also use small fragments of code in the middle of normal paragraphs.

e.g. <p>The <code><p></codeelement etc etc

7/7/05, David Dorward <david (AT) dorward (DOT) me.ukwrote:

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:38:32PM -0400, Adrian wrote:
Is there any reason <codedoesn't assume preformatting? I've never
seen code that doesn't require preformatting to be readable.

Well, its an inline element for a start. That sort of white space
handling is generally reserved for blocks, and if <codebecame a
block it would throw my nested <codetechnique right off.

I also use small fragments of code in the middle of normal paragraphs.

e.g. <p>The <code><p></codeelement etc etc

Yes, but how does space preserving hurt inline text?

Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:46:40PM -0400, Adrian wrote:

e.g. <p>The <code><p></codeelement etc etc

Yes, but how does space preserving hurt inline text?

It would stop it word wrapping at the edge of the block (which is
perfectly acceptable in this example), I could use non-breaking spaces
if that was important.

Adrian wrote:

>Is there any reason <codedoesn't assume preformatting? I've never
>seen code that doesn't require preformatting to be readable.

It is used inline code and not for code examples as a whole. I have
never had the need to preserve spaces, and I use <code*a lot*.
Preserving spaces and newlines is used for the purpose of indenting and
formatting code to be more readable, and those arguments do not apply to
inline content.

Preformatting on <codewould actually be very bothersome (it already is
in <pre>) because I t let my XML editor automatically format
preformatted items. It is relatively easy to skip pre blocks, but not
being able to format entire paragraphs for fear it e.g. inserts line
breaks inside <codeelements No please :).

By the way, it is only a default - you can always change the behavior
with CSS, if you so desire.

~Grauw