- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:54:39 -0500
- To: applemac@frank.mtsu.edu
- Cc: www-style@www10.w3.org
From: Brother Baker <applemac@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: | CHAR | [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? --- I don't really like CHAR (which sounds like it should be a single character) or TEXT or STRING (which sound like complete things rather than like an otherwise undistinguished area within something else). How about EXTENT? Otherwise, of the names proposed so far, I like PHRASE best. scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Monday, 10 July 1995 09:55:30 UTC