When I enter

> <\!-- language-all: lang-bash -->
>
>         if :; then echo "quoted"; fi

in a post on main, the output looks like this:

[![example for proper syntax highlighting on main][1]][1]

Here on meta, the very same code gets no syntax highlighting at all:

<!-- language-all: lang-bash -->

    if :; then echo "quoted"; fi

I already tried every possible combination from `language: bash` to said `language-all: lang-bash` without any avail. As the last paragraphs in [this post by Eliah Kagan](https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/17167/507051) shows, I’m not the only one who is [bothered](https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/17899/507051) by this – I think we all agree syntax highlighting is very useful.

Could you shed some light on whether that’s actually a bug or rather [tag:status-bydesign]?  
If it’s the latter:

- What are the precise reasons this decision was made?
- Can we have a discussion on that?

---
> When is syntax highlighting needed in meta? The only case I can think of is a question asking about syntax highlighting. Is that really a common enough issue to need it?

There are a number of scripts and code snippets posted here on meta, examples in addition to the above linked ones include:

- code from main copied for analysis: https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/15292/507051  
that’s a case where syntax highlighting would be *especially* useful
- [SEDE](https://data.stackexchange.com/) SQL scripts: https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/13806/507051
- SVG code: https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/2631/507051 and https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/2640/507051
- scripts requested by OP: https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/13905/507051, https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/483/507051 and https://meta.askubuntu.com/a/294/507051

Is there any good reason *not* to have syntax highlighting available?


  [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/y7J3I.png