Open foolip opened 2 months ago
I have some doubts about this.
Would consumers really want to show a mix of prose and code?
There are cases where it's not obvious what the best use of <code>
is:
Array
at()
?gap
?Temporal
?WebTransport
?There's a bunch of good discussion in https://github.com/web-platform-dx/web-features/pull/935, which I've now abandoned.
The most important thing is that nobody seems to really want <code>
in feature names, but @captainbrosset would like a field with the name escaped as HTML.
but @captainbrosset would like a field with the name escaped as HTML.
Yes, I think it'd be good if consumers (including myself) had access to a name that's safe to put in HTML without having to worry about it.
Providing that would be easy, and given the lack of interest (including my own) for marking up names with <code>
I guess we can simply call it name_html
and revisit later if we want more variants.
https://github.com/web-platform-dx/web-features/pull/935 shows what this would look like.