W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1995

Re: fwd:Fonts

From: Brother Baker <applemac@frank.mtsu.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 21:35:43 -0500 (CDT)
To: www-style@www10.w3.org
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950708212818.26604B-100000@frank.mtsu.edu>
On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, Benjamin C. W. Sittler wrote:

> So far we've heard the following suggested names for a generic
> character-level element:
> TEXT : Not a very good mnemonic
> FONT : Far too specific, in my opinion. Font selection is only one use 
>        for a generic element.
> C    : Far too cryptic, in my opinion.
> ELEMENT : Even worse than TEXT. *Every* container and every
>           character-level tag is a "text element."
> STRING : I'm biased, aren't I? I like this one, except it's just as bad as
>          TEXT.
> If it were left up to me, I'd pick TEXT or STRING, although the TEXT
> element has (perhaps undesirable) SGML connotations, and STRING takes too
> long to type. Perhaps a three letter code, like TXT, STR, ELE, or even EL
> would be better?

Why can't we use something short and relatively more descriptive like:
	[or even CH or CHR]
I mean, this was described as a character-level item wasn't it?
So, what would be the problem with one of these?

			--James Baker / http://www.mtsu.edu/~applemac
			  MTCSC Home /  http://www.mtsu.edu/~mtcsc
Received on Saturday, 8 July 1995 22:35:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:37 UTC