Re: fwd:Fonts

Benjamin C. W. Sittler (
Thu, 6 Jul 1995 23:13:09 -0600

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 23:13:09 -0600
Message-Id: <>
From: (Benjamin C. W. Sittler)
Subject: Re: fwd:Fonts

>To: "Terry Allen" <>
>From: (Benjamin C. W. Sittler)
>Subject: Re: fwd:Fonts
>>FWIW, in the Docbook DTD we're going to add a tag for much the same
>>purpose, called PHRASE.
>>I may have missed it, but has anyone proposed that C/ELEMENT/FONT/STRING
>>should be allowed to contain other inline markup?
>>Terry Allen  (   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
> (sig deleted)
>My instinct is to have the generic character-level element inherit the
surrounding content model. 
>While we're on the subject, I'd like to propose a name for the element
which seems far more semantically pleasing than any of those mentioned so
far... what about <MARK>? After all, aren't we marking the affected text (in
invisible ink, by default)? 
><TITLE>ElectroPets: Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Catalog</TITLE>
>MARK.ProdName : font.color = puke green
>... The <MARK CLASS=ProdName ID=Dog>Wonder Dog</MARK> keeps robbers on the
>The source doc fr the above snippet might lend itself quite easily to
automatic indexing.
>[I would endorse <PHRASE>, except that "phraseology" has inapplicable
(dumb joke deleted...)