Re: Where are Fonts and Phrases allowed? [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]
Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>
Message-id: <199406102002.NAA02913@rock>
From: Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:02:52 PDT
In-Reply-To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@oclc.org>
"Where are Fonts and Phrases allowed? [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]" (Jun 10, 3:47pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.0 10/31/90)
To: html-ig@oclc.org
Subject: Re: Where are Fonts and Phrases allowed? [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]
Content-Length: 1191
Dan writes:
Another subtlety: is nesting allowed? Must it be treated
significantly? For example, Must this:
x <em>y <em>z</em></em> (1)
be distinguished from this...?
x <em>y</em><em> z</em> (2)
Must this:
x <i>y <b>z</b></i> (3)
be distinguished from this...?
x <i>y </i><b>z</b> (4)
I propose that nesting is syntactically allowed, but it has no
semantic meaning -- that is, each of the above syntaxes is allowed,
but an application is allowed to treat (1) the same as (2) and
to treat (3) the same as (4).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree it's simpler to say that nesting of font changes has
no effect, and that this is appropriate to the desired simplicity
of HTML. But if nesting has no effect, it shouldn't be allowed
(at the level at which we become proscriptive: 2.0? 2.5? 3.1?),
or, if the context is current practice, should be deprecated,
because the writer may make the mistake of believing that if
he can nest, then nesting must have some effect.
Regards,
--
Terry Allen (terry@ora.com)
Editor, Digital Media Group
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Sebastopol, Calif., 95472