Re: [Docutils-develop] HTML writer

[David G. <go...@us...>]

Dethe Elza wrote:
> <code> is aperfectly reasonable and desireable way to markup data
> which *is* code.

In option lists, the options (and option arguments) *are* a form of
code, if "code" is taken to mean "program code or computer I/O".  But
taking another look at the HTML spec, I realized that it would be more
appropriate to use <kbd> for option groups and <var> for option
arguments.  I've made the change.  Option *strings* (like "-a") still
have '<span class="option"></span>' around them (but no style is
defined).  (Option *groups* are collections of one or more sets of
option strings and option arguments.)

Perhaps <tt> should be used instead of <code> for ``inline literals``?
It's more generic and fits better, since we cannot distinguish between
code snippets, input, and output.  Yes, I've convinced myself; done.
Now, should <tt> text have a light grey background like <code> did?

> Whether it renders differently in a given browser is a side issue,
> what it gives you is semantice/structural markup.  Markup, even in
> HTML, is designed to capture this structure.

Yes, very true.  Even though HTML's markup is not particularly rich
(compared to, say, DocBook), we should make use of what is available.

> Mark Pilgrim, author of Dive into Python, is writing an excellent
> series [1]_ on his weblog to improve accessibilty in HTML. ...
> 
> .. [1] http://diveintomark.org/

Thanks for the link; I'll give it a read in the near future.

-- 
David Goodger  <go...@us...>  Open-source projects:
  - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
    (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
  - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/