Subject: Re: fwd:Fonts
From: email@example.com (Benjamin C. W. Sittler)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 19:45:54 -0600
From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Jul 7 21: 46:06 1995
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
email@example.com (Mike Meyer) wrote:
>> 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.
Why not MARK? It seems much more logical to me, it's not even an abbreviation.
>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
Just as much a violation of HTML, but no worse, in my opinion. The generic
character-level element would only be for semantics which *do not exist in
>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.
My guess (without checking the archives) is that it's probably been removed
because you can achieve the same effect with stylesheets.
>Third question: should this be going to the html-wg list?
[I'm sending a CarbonCopy to www-html, since this is relevant to both lists.]