Re: fwd:Fonts

Benjamin C. W. Sittler (bsittler@prism.nmt.edu)
Thu, 6 Jul 1995 23:13:09 -0600


Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 23:13:09 -0600
Message-Id: <199507070513.XAA11170@prism.nmt.edu>
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
From: bsittler@prism.nmt.edu (Benjamin C. W. Sittler)
Subject: Re: fwd:Fonts
Cc: www-style@www10.w3.org

>To: "Terry Allen" <terry@ora.com>
>From: bsittler@nmt.edu (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?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>-- 
>>Terry Allen  (terry@ora.com)   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)? 
>
>i.e., 
><HTML><HEAD>
><TITLE>ElectroPets: Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Catalog</TITLE>
><STYLE>
>MARK.ProdName : font.color = puke green
></STYLE>
></HEAD><BODY>
>... The <MARK CLASS=ProdName ID=Dog>Wonder Dog</MARK> keeps robbers on the
run. 
>
>The source doc fr the above snippet might lend itself quite easily to
automatic indexing.
>
>[I would endorse <PHRASE>, except that "phraseology" has inapplicable
connotations.]
(dumb joke deleted...)