Re: [wwwdocs] bugs.html addition

[Kelley Cook <kelley dot r dot cook at gm dot com>]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
 >On Tue, 14 May 2002, Kelley Cook wrote:
 >> BTW, there are a lot of problems with bugs.html.  The xhtml is legal
 >> syntactically, but there are higher level semantic problems with the
 >> proper markup meaning of <code>, <pre>, <blockquote> and others.
 >> I'll rework it this week, if you want.
 >
 >Yes, please! :)
 >
 >(Personally, I had some preference for <blockquote><code>, but Zack,
 >IIRC, showed that <pre> might be equivalent or better.)

Actually, the "code" hyperlink that validator gives which is
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/phrase/code.html
suggests wrapping multiline code with
<pre><code> ... </code></pre>

So, I was going to go one step further with

<pre style="padding-left:5%"><code> ... </code></pre>

or what I was acutally planning to do and throw "padding-left: 5%"
into an in-line stylesheet.

This works for browsers as far back as IE4 and Netscape 4.

Actually, AFAICT the truly correct way should be just
<code "white-space:pre; padding-left:5%"> ... </code>, but
MS Internet Explorer before version 6.0b has the
white-space tag semantics backwards :(

 >
 >> 2002-05-13  Kelley Cook  <kelleycook@comcast.net>
 >>
 >>     * bugs.html: Add in non-bug on proper va_arg promotions.
 >
 >This looks fine from the wwwdocs side, but I'd prefer one of our
 >standards experts to actually approve it.

The error/warning was implemented by Richard Henderson, so it seems
he would be the best judge.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-09/msg00333.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-03/msg02086.html

Kelley Cook