Joe English once wrote...
> email@example.com (Alex Hopmann) wrote:
> > Is that correct? What are the relative merrits of calling it <C> (character)
> > vs. <TEXT>?
> The name "FONT" should also be considered, since that's already
> deployed as an experimental Netscape extension. (There it's
> only used to specify the font size, but other presentation-only
> attributes could be added as well). Personally, I prefer "TEXT"
> over "FONT" or "C".
> I agree that there is a need for such a tag. Although in *most*
> cases one of the semantic elements like <EM>, <STRONG>, or <DFN> is
> more appropriate, there are plenty of Web pages which apply formatting
> for the sake of formatting, and there is currently no general-purpose
> semantics-free phrase-level element which can be used for this purpose.
What's wrong with just a generic <ELEMENT> tag? <ELEMENT class=product>
or <ELEMENT class=price> or <ELEMENT class=credential>. It would have no
special significance except for the class given it. It would be ignored
unless it has a class assigned.
%%%%%% firstname.lastname@example.org %%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/www/ %%%%%%