Re: Standalone Code Tag

[turnstep]

in reply to Standalone Code Tag

Why should we invent new HTML tags when the ones we have are perfectly fine? Having to type a closing CODE tag is hardly an imposition imposed upon members of the monastery. Matter of fact, you probably spent more time typing this post and your reply than it took you to type </CODE> for all your posts in the last year.

[princepawn]

Why should we invent new HTML tags when the ones we have are perfectly fine? Having to type a closing CODE tag is hardly an imposition imposed upon members of the monastery.

Could you please be scientific and empirical about this issue? The terms "perfectly fine" and "hardly an imposition" are vague, qualititative and unsubstantiated.

However, just in case you missed the empirical data and just in case you are amenable to seeing the benefits of such a tag, I re-articulate:

A short, stand-alone code tag (proposal: the letter C, will require 3 key strokes. The current code tag requires 13. This means for every code tag used on this site, 4 times more characters are being typed. There probably 3000 code tags on this site. That means 12000 times too much disk space has been used AND it also means 12000 times too much time has been used typing the strokes.

I estimate 30,000 more code tags by the end of December. How much more time and disk space should be eaten up by this task?

Matter of fact, you probably spent more time typing this post and your reply than it took you to type </CODE> for all your posts in the last year.

You are right, the planning and deliberation of the issue has taken some time, but the time and space gains in the long run will prove worth it.

Is there a formal means of bringing something to a vote?

[chipmunk]

This absolutely does not mean 12,0000 times too much disk space has been used. Rather, it means 9,000 more bytes are being used than are, according to your theory, "necessary".

Why are you freaking out about less than 10K of disk space? PerlMonks would save far more disk space by deleting all the nodes you've posted, than by replacing <CODE></CODE> with <C>. (Not that I'm suggesting such a thing, of course. ;)

Aside from the fact that your proposal just wouldn't work, because all the occurences of > in the code would have to be encoded, which defeats the purpose of having such a tag in the first place.