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
> 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:
[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?
--James Baker / http://www.mtsu.edu/~applemac
MTCSC Home / http://www.mtsu.edu/~mtcsc
- Re: fwd:Fonts
- From: email@example.com (Benjamin C. W. Sittler)