In this case, I'd say "improved it" rather than "turning it into something different."
Seems that the w3c 4.01 spec effectively requires a preceding <pre> to achieve what The Monastery does with a simple <code>...</code> or <c>...</c>
See w3c or http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/phrase/code.html. | [reply] |
"improved" is a matter of opinion. You can't for instance use a line of code and highlight a section you want to focus because there's an implicit CDATA context inside.
BTW, in HTML, PRE is a blocklevel element, while CODE is an inline element, so they aren't quite interchangable, nor can you not prepend every CODE element with PRE.
IMO, it would have been better if Perlmonks just had C for code, and left the HTML CODE as is. But, IIRC, the C was introduced later as an alias for CODE.
| [reply] |
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Hmm, I seem to recall PerlMonks used to treat inline <c> different from those
in their own "paragraph" i.e; preceded by \n\n
Update:
Oh, I see. Thanks tye
...glad to know I only misremembered reality rather than remembered fa
+ntasy.
--
In Bob We Trust, All Others Bring Data.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Funny, you're under the impression that any of that matters
| [reply] |