Am 27.03.2015, 02:22 Uhr, schrieb Andrea Rendine
<[email protected]>:
[…]
I close with a request. Marking code snippets with their <code> tag and
an
attribute-based programming language distinction, could equally be useful
for some purposes, namely, search engine indexing and syntax highlight
(custom-made
or even native for some languages, now it doesn't matter).
It could be. But I suggest getting feedback from search engine operators
whether there is real interest and use for it.
I suppose syntax highlighters already demonstrate some use for a
programming language indicator, but I would like to know why the way they
work now isn't sufficient. Maybe something like: a standard attribute
enables authors to switch a syntax highlighter without having to change
their markup? Then: do people switch syntax highlighters? Are syntax
highlighter programmers willing to support the new attribute? How do they
want the attribute (values) to be in order to support it?
So I think it would be better to have a practical approach than a
theoretical one alone.
@class and
@data-* are used and (in the case of @class) loosely fit. But a new
@language attribute could fit better. It is suggested by the class value
proopsed in the spec (class="language-pascal" in the example) and it is
also known to authors, as everybody knows (it was incorrectly specified
on
<script> tags). It's not an important issue, but I hope to see it
realised
in a consistent manner someday.
Please do not implement an attribute @language for this. It is too similar
to @lang. "lang" is just an abbreviation of "language". Nothing in these
attribute names indicates which is supposed to be used for which use case.
I suspect it would cause confusion, i.e. some people would start
erroneously using @language instead of @lang and vice versa.
It seems much less likely to me that @plang (as in Michael A. Peters
example
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2015Mar/0027.html)
would be erroneously used instead of @lang. The "p" for "programming"
indicates what that attribute is for. Even if you don't know what "p"
stands for you wouldn't use this attribute for a human language … (Isn't
"plang" the sound of an empty soda can hitting a steel plate?)
Martin
