Re: <IMAGE>? <TT> == <I>? toHell(NS)

Scott E. Preece (
Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:18:05 -0600

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:18:05 -0600
Message-Id: <>
From: "Scott E. Preece" <>
In-reply-to: "David Perrell"'s message of Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:26:16 -0800
Subject: Re: <IMAGE>? <TT> == <I>? toHell(NS)

 From: "David Perrell" <>
| None, IMO. So far as I know, TT and I are not accumulative. The second
| <TT> is like turning on a switch that's already on -- no change.
| Likewise, </I> is the off switch for italic. If it's already off,
| ignore it.

I'll happy allow someone with deeper SGML experience than I to answer
authoritatively, but I'm reasonably sure you're wrong.  They're not
"switches", they're beginnning and end markers.  It is, simply, an error
for one to appear without the other except where the DTD allows

| If possible (and it is), I would expect parts of this sentence to be
| rendered as <I>italic proportional <TT>italic monospaced and </I>
| regular monospaced</TT>. Is NSN "guessing" I made a mistake when it
| renders everything from <I> to </TT> in italic proportional?

Similarly, I believe your example in the second paragraph to be totally
broken - non-nesting tags simply aren't allowed, ever, and all the
browser can do is try to guess what you really meant.

You description of NSN's behavior doesn't match what it does for me (NSN
3.01 Gold on AIX) - for me it shows the part from <I> to <TT> in italic
proportional, the part from <TT> to </I> in italic monospaced, and the
part from </I> to </TT> in italic proportional.  Again, that's not the
way *I* would have rendered it (I would have said the last section
should be in the normal body type, since the </I> should have closed the
<I> and, implicitly, the <TT>), but it does correctly render the part of
the markup that is legal (up to the </I>), so, even if the behavior is a
little odd, it's not "broken".


scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail: