> So far we've heard the following suggested names for a generic
> character-level element: [short list: TEXT, FONT, ELEMENT, STRING and
> C : Far too cryptic, in my opinion.
Not as bad as CP, though.
How about making C less cryptic: CH, CHR, CHRS, CHAR, CHARS (about as
long as I care to get).
The only objection to such an element in general is the fear of abuse,
like: <CHR CLASS=CITATION>. I want to know how this is any worse than
Second question: does anyone know why HTML3 lost the HTML+ <EM
STYLE=X> replacement for <X>? That would be relevant to this. If no
one recalls, I'll try wading into the archives to see if it's there.
Third question: should this be going to the html-wg list?
- Re: fwd:Fonts
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Benjamin C. W. Sittler)