Re: <TT> (was Re: HTML 4.0 draft available)

E. Stephen Mack (estephen@emf.net)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 01:57:02 -0700


Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970710015702.00759dec@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 01:57:02 -0700
To: www-html@w3.org
From: "E. Stephen Mack" <estephen@emf.net>
Subject: Re: <TT> (was Re: HTML 4.0 draft available)
In-Reply-To: <v03102817afea4bba667a@[205.149.180.135]>

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>>> I often use TT for inline filenames/extensions, such as:
>>>   BinHex (<TT>.hqx</TT>) files and StuffIt (<TT>.sit</TT>) files...

At 2:42a -0400 07/10/97, Jim Wise wrote:
>> It would be more correct to use <KBD>, <CODE>, <SAMP>, or <VAR> here

At 01:25 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
> Not <CODE>, as it is not program code. Not <VAR>, as it is not a variable
> either. <KBD> also is not applicable, as it is not something for the user
> to type. I don't see how <SAMP> applies either.

Actually, I think <SAMP> is the best one.  In text.html#edef-SAMP the 4.0
draft says:

  SAMP:
  Designates sample output from programs, scripts, etc. 

DIR programs, the Macintosh Finder, Windows Explorer -- these are all
programs that list files.  Their output include .HQX and .SIT.  So
<SAMP>.hqx</SAMP> would be a logical use of this phrase element.

Mind you, I don't think using <TT> in your case causes a big problem either.

I think the best use of <TT> is for when you are literally marking the
output of a typewriter.  If you are reproducing a typewritten letter, then
     <BLOCKQUOTE><TT>...typewritten letter contents...</TT></BLOCKQUOTE>
seems logical to me.

-- 
E. Stephen Mack <estephen@emf.net>          http://www.emf.net/~estephen/