>
> From: Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com 
> <mailto:peter.krantz@gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Re%3A%20samp%2C%20kbd%2C%20var%20and%20code&In-Reply-To=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E>> 
>
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:51:17 +0200
>
> On 8/23/06, Toby Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk <mailto:tobyink@goddamn.co.uk?Subject=Re%3A%20Re%3A%20samp%2C%20kbd%2C%20var%20and%20code&In-Reply-To=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C7b9ad66d0608230751y727f4e4fvdc8ebfe0b8d11bac%40mail.gmail.com%253E>> wrote:
> >
> > Yes -- this is mostly my point. XHTML 2 still has too much compsci stuff
> > in it. I can see how <code> can be useful: I use it myself frequently,
> > which is why it's not in the subject line of this thread.
> >
>
> I am sorry but "code" is not part of a generic document markup format
> even if you personally find it useful. As covered earlier, the
> extensibility of XHTML2 makes it easy for you to add whatever module
> you may require for your domain.
>
> code and blockcode should be removed with samp, kbd and var. Is there
> anyone on this list that can argument for their existence?
>   

Reference sites, and sites that give example code for something.

W3 has the potential to use <code> and <blockcode> effectually.  Giving 
example for code in XHTML2 such as this example:

<code>
&lt;p src="hello.jpg"&gt;Hello&lt;/p&gt;
</code>

That is an obvious reason for <code> to be useful.  It lets human 
readers know what that line of text is, it's code for something.