- From: Benjamin C. W. Sittler <bsittler@prism.nmt.edu>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 23:13:09 -0600
- To: www-html@www10.w3.org
- Cc: www-style@www10.w3.org
>To: "Terry Allen" <terry@ora.com> >From: bsittler@nmt.edu (Benjamin C. W. Sittler) >Subject: Re: fwd:Fonts > >>FWIW, in the Docbook DTD we're going to add a tag for much the same >>purpose, called PHRASE. >> >>I may have missed it, but has anyone proposed that C/ELEMENT/FONT/STRING >>should be allowed to contain other inline markup? >> >>Regards, >> >>-- >>Terry Allen (terry@ora.com) O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. > (sig deleted) >> > >My instinct is to have the generic character-level element inherit the surrounding content model. > >While we're on the subject, I'd like to propose a name for the element which seems far more semantically pleasing than any of those mentioned so far... what about <MARK>? After all, aren't we marking the affected text (in invisible ink, by default)? > >i.e., ><HTML><HEAD> ><TITLE>ElectroPets: Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Catalog</TITLE> ><STYLE> >MARK.ProdName : font.color = puke green ></STYLE> ></HEAD><BODY> >... The <MARK CLASS=ProdName ID=Dog>Wonder Dog</MARK> keeps robbers on the run. > >The source doc fr the above snippet might lend itself quite easily to automatic indexing. > >[I would endorse <PHRASE>, except that "phraseology" has inapplicable connotations.] (dumb joke deleted...)
Received on Friday, 7 July 1995 01:13:15 UTC