- From: Mike Batchelor <mikebat@clark.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 16:51:47 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-style@www10.w3.org
Joe English once wrote... > > hopmann@holonet.net (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. -- %%%%%% mikebat@clark.net %%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/www/ %%%%%%
Received on Thursday, 6 July 1995 16:51:51 UTC