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

Re: fwd:Fonts

From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:54:39 -0500
Message-Id: <199507101354.IAA16952@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:42 GMT