Fw: Re: slight amendment to html_meta

annie sez:
> I started out a big fan of the idea of additional graphic
> highlighting for this.  The more I worked with the idea the less of a
> fan I became. There's already so much highlighting that readers
> struggle to avoid just tuning it all out. Every time I thought I had
> a scheme I discovered it collided with something else. I'm sure
> eventually I could find some scheme that in theory doesn't, but in
> practice humans are just going to be lost anyway.

Jan sez:

>Thanks for that info.  I guess you're a better judge than I am because
I'm too used to it and wrote the rules myself.  I'm a bit surprised
though.  Typically, you're more or less expecting a certain colour
scheme for the code you typically write.  If you see something odd,
you put the cursor on it and it tells you what you are looking at
at the status line.  If you think the explanation is too cryptic,
that is changed rather easily (as long as it fits in about 60 chars).
Possibly we can somewhere add a link to an explanation page (not
sure how to do that).

Annie sez:
What's there already is fine. I just mean I couldn't find a way to add syntax coloring for expected modes without it becoming too much tootie frootie.
The explanations are fine. I meant that if you make the syntax coloring too
complex and convoluted, it just appears random and is ignored.

You're right, people actually look for unexpected patterns.