dita-lightweight-dita — archive

[Mark Giffin]

This is a good point Robert. We included <pre> and its MDITA equivalent ```code block```, but that is a block element. Most likely the reason for not including an explicit <codeph> equivalent in MDITA was a general favoring of greater simplicity. But I now think that not including it was a mistake. My reasoning is that MDITA is based on the CommonMark spec, and that spec includes the use of single backticks for this purpose here: https://spec.commonmark.org/0.30/#code-spans Because it's in the spec MDITA is based on, it should be supported. You might say that not including this in a tool is an inadvertent mistake on the part of the tool maker, because it's part of the CommonMark spec even if it's not explicit in the (upcoming) LwDITA spec. For this reason I think we should explicitly include it in the LwDITA spec. Mark On 11/12/2022 3:52 AM, Robert Anderson wrote: Hello from the DITA-OT day conference, where questions are coming up about Lightweight DITA. One question in particular is about code phrase support in MDITA. It is not allowed today, I was wondering if that has come up as an issue or if there is any thought of adding it? At least one prominent tool for working with LwDITA has dropped support for the commonly used back-tick markup for code phrases, because it is not actually allowed by the spec -- the back-ticks are now ignored and the content renders as a simple phrase without the expected monospace style. If code phrases cannot be allowed in MDITA, would it be possible to add the tt element from the highlighting domain? LwDITA already includes almost that whole domain, so it would not have the concern of bringing in an element from the software domain. That would allow MDITA files to recognize back-tick markup and let complying processors retain the expected formatting. Thanks, Robert