in reply to Re^3: Allowed HTML tags
in thread Allowed HTML tags

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Allowed HTML tags
by JavaFan (Canon) on Nov 27, 2008 at 12:10 UTC
    "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.

      You can use <tt> to just mark some inline html as code. Inline perlmonks code tags actually emit <tt> tags to the html, not <code> tags.

      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.

        If there are any newline(s) inside <c> or <code> tags, then the contents are rendered as a block. If no newlines are included, then it is rendered in-line. It has been that way "forever".

        The only change (made years ago) was that a newline directly after the opening tag is now ignored (other than that it still causes the contents to be rendered as a block).

        - tye        

      Funny, you're under the impression that any of that matters
Re^5: Allowed HTML tags
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 27, 2013 at 05:47 UTC
    nice info