in reply to Two quick (and easy?) suggestions for PM

I'm a bit baffled by your update. If people decide to go with your idea, why do you suggest new users should use CODE and not C, when they are equivalent? It would imply there was some danger using C and not CODE, and only experienced people would know how to avoid the pitfalls - but that contradicts you saying CODE and C are equivalent.

While I welcome the idea of not overloading an existing HTML element, I don't see any point in keeping C for people "in the know", but continuing telling newcomers to use CODE. If (and that's a big if) they decide to go with C, the only reason IMO to keep CODE around for some time is to cater older users, as they are used to it.

-- Abigail

  • Comment on Re: Two quick (and easy?) suggestions for PM

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Two quick (and easy?) suggestions for PM
by Masem (Monsignor) on Jun 26, 2001 at 22:34 UTC
    The only reasont that I would suggest to use CODE over C is to associate what that special tag means. Say we completely converted all CODE tags to just C tags, and told new users to use a C tag to indicate code. Because of the abbreviation from CODE to C, it's not intuitively obvious that "code" is connected with "C", and thus some might forget it faster than having them introduced via CODE (which is a direct connection, of course). I'm certainly not saying that if the C tag was available that we should go around and flame newbies that use the C tag over CODE. However, you'll have more people using CODE or C over PRE or (even worse) no special tags when displaying code if you tell users that "You can mark code with the special HTML tag CODE (or C for short)...". That code-to-CODE connection is the key to making sure that info sticks. (Yes, I've done waaaay too much on learning styles and the like in my academia days ... ;-)

    Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion