Timeline for Is there a functional purpose to putting things in code text here?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2012 at 5:35 | comment | added | GMJoe | @SevenSidedDie Hmm, that is undesirable. Nevertheless, it doesn't make code text useless, just less useful (and not as good an option as some alternatives), so I'll leave my answer as-is. | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 17:31 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie |
Screen-readers will also render code-text as code, which is undesireable. Abusing the semantics of semantic HTML tags (and the code ticks do generate HTML <code> tags) is considered harmful. Bold, italics, and Title Case are three valid choices before we need to go abusing semantic HTML tags.
|
|
| May 28, 2012 at 8:12 | comment | added | GMJoe | @Jadasc Ah... In that case, I don't really have an opinion on the matter. The way I see it, if an individual answer or question is made more readable by the addition of code formatting, than that's a good thing - but if there's no effect (such as when the code formatting is just replacing existing bold formatting) then it probably shouldn't be approved. To put it another way, I can't honestly say whether code format is better or worse than the obvious alternatives. | |
| May 25, 2012 at 13:20 | comment | added | AceCalhoon Mod | @Jadasc My version of the accept/reject screen has an "improve" button (maybe that's just a mod thing?) that'd allow you to pick out the bits you like on the fly. | |
| May 25, 2012 at 11:45 | comment | added | Jadasc | If I understand you correctly, the second. The page where one accepts or rejects suggested edits asks you to accept those edits that are correct and reject those that are wrong. I was looking for a consensus as to whether this is a type of correct edit or not -- it doesn't change the content at all; just reformat it in a way that's arguably more pleasing. If it were an answer or a question, I'd vote it down. However, that's not available to me on edits — it's either accept or reject. | |
| May 25, 2012 at 6:04 | comment | added | GMJoe | @ Jadasc So, to clarify, would you say that your question is about whether there's a benefit to using a single standard of formatting? Or is it about whether this particular element should be included in an existing implicit standard? | |
| May 25, 2012 at 2:16 | comment | added | GMJoe | @Jadasc Ah, I see - I misinterpreted your question as being whether code text was useful at all, but it was about whether editing code text into existing answers was useful. I shall think about it, and change my answer. | |
| May 24, 2012 at 21:28 | comment | added | Jadasc | Depends on how you feel about the editing tally and the reputation that arises from it. I could easily go back through the archives and change the spelling of words and the use of punctuation to match U.S. English rather than U.K. English; it would suit my aesthetic sense just fine. But I don't think I'd consider those "useful" edits; I wanted to poll the community and see whether this falls into that category or not. | |
| May 9, 2012 at 6:48 | history | answered | GMJoe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |