Inline code and YouTube tags
 

We are experimenting with an inline code tag.

The regular code block tags work okay for chunks of code. This tag will be for smaller inline chunks.

Please test it and let us know how to make it better.

[noparse][c]code[/c][/noparse]

This is testing the [c]code[/c] tags. [c]Testing again, something with some characters like ["<>";!```][/c] And with some :smile: inline, it still looks okay. I wonder if the $\$-based tex tags$ are still on and how they interact with the [c]new $code tags$[/c] $and [c]in reverse[/c]$? Yep, all looks good to me.:party:

The link parser should not work inside these new tags.

Test: [c]http://www.mersenne.org/[/c]

Smilies should not work either.

Test: [c]:mike:[/c]

:tu:

How does it handle newlines: [c]Hello
World[/c]

Works like a champ!

Is there anything the new tag can't do that the old one could?

[QUOTE=axn;422066]Is there anything the new tag can't do that the old one could?[/QUOTE]

look like the pastebin tag ? edit:sorry misread for some reason. though ou have to admit it looks like the pastebin tag lol

:laurv:

[QUOTE=axn;422066]How does it handle newlines: [c]Hello
World[/c]

Works like a champ!

Is there anything the new tag can't do that the old one could?[/QUOTE]

[c]
Large blocks of code or other unformatted text are likely
more difficult to read
since they are ignoring my beginning- and end-of-line spacing
and it doesn't seem there's a way to keep very long things on one line,
and it doesn't eventually scroll in any direction like the block [code] tag does, so if I go on for a long time like this:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis mollis enim eu tortor pharetra molestie. Phasellus commodo ex erat, vel consequat dui tempus ac. Nulla facilisi. Sed laoreet velit id mauris sagittis sollicitudin. Vestibulum ultricies nunc id libero vestibulum, fringilla auctor felis facilisis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin tempus sagittis dui. Integer tincidunt nec metus id luctus. Curabitur lobortis velit tortor. Nullam venenatis, justo quis eleifend pellentesque, urna magna ullamcorper felis, sed rhoncus tortor ante at metus. Ut id gravida velit, vitae tristique lacus.

Ut id commodo nisl. Nam efficitur rutrum dolor, at accumsan ligula rhoncus non. Quisque vel bibendum metus. Sed nec diam vehicula, sagittis elit quis, ultrices magna. Donec faucibus ante ut metus tempus, cursus lacinia risus suscipit. Phasellus sed nisi justo. Suspendisse sollicitudin ligula sed laoreet laoreet. Phasellus efficitur posuere elit, in pellentesque sem gravida at. Duis eget erat vitae mauris vehicula tincidunt. Nullam tincidunt nibh id nisl convallis, vitae porta neque porttitor. Nunc pulvinar risus at pretium scelerisque. Nunc vel metus dui.

Duis vel pellentesque lacus. Aliquam condimentum ullamcorper volutpat. Aliquam neque ligula, pretium ut consectetur sit amet, finibus porttitor libero. Suspendisse sagittis ultrices eros vitae porta. Nullam arcu libero, varius vitae mi ut, lobortis auctor sem. Vestibulum venenatis quis tellus feugiat varius. Donec ipsum mauris, ultrices eu ex in, euismod bibendum quam. Curabitur quis nunc venenatis erat finibus accumsan quis a massa.

Donec consectetur tincidunt lorem, at elementum ipsum tempus ut. Duis urna risus, fringilla id augue ut, fermentum suscipit justo. Suspendisse potenti. Sed a arcu hendrerit, porta eros at, mollis nisl. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras tellus nibh, egestas id dolor in, ultrices tempor tortor. Aenean bibendum, nunc eget porta faucibus, nulla nisi aliquet lorem, sit amet maximus sem velit sed nisi. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Quisque malesuada egestas sapien id pretium. Morbi tempor, justo porta facilisis tristique, libero enim rhoncus ligula, non ultricies dui neque consequat nulla.

You can also see (in Firefox, at least) a little more border below and above my text because I have the [ c ] and [ / c ] on their own lines.
[/c]

The old [code] tag is still better for something you want block-formatted or is very long, but [c] looks great for inline or some other short code.

Do we need to tweak the colors or anything like that?

:mike:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;422091]Do we need to tweak the colors or anything like that?

:mike:[/QUOTE]

I would make the green a touch darker, perhaps #153 ish?

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;422116]I would make the green a touch darker, perhaps #153 ish?[/QUOTE]The current green is [c]#2e8b57[/c]. Can you tell us your desired color in that format?

We removed the line around the text, adjusted the padding and changed the background color to one of the template colors. Any of these can be reverted if necessary. Opinions?

:mike:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;422129]The current green is [c]#2e8b57[/c]. Can you tell us your desired color in that format?

We removed the line around the text, adjusted the padding and changed the background color to one of the template colors. Any of these can be reverted if necessary. Opinions?

:mike:[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="#153"]#115533 == #153 (#rgb is shorthand for #rrggbb), and it's this color.[/COLOR] You can put "#153" directly in the CSS (like the #fff just before it), it's understood by browsers.

I agree that something darker, like #153, would be better. It would also be better to move that CSS from an inline style to a class defined wherever you define your CSS (it looks like most of it is inline to the page on this site, which isn't ideal from a caching/bandwidth perspective, as opposed to in one or more external css files).