Re: ERROR(?) in content declarations for character tags
Earl Hood <ehood@imagine.convex.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 11:12:38 EDT
Message-id: <199409231507.KAA01959@imagine.convex.com>
Reply-To: ehood@imagine.convex.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Earl Hood <ehood@imagine.convex.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: ERROR(?) in content declarations for character tags
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
> Please see http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q3.messages/147.html
> for my argument in favor of nested emphasis. I think it was widely accepted.
I accept the reason for most of the character tags (i.e. the 'emphasis'
based ones), but I think it is hard to use the same argument on some of
the tags. For example, the following tags still, to me, do not make
sense to allow nesting:
CODE, SAMP, KBD, KEY
Does this make sense:
<code>This <code>is <code>an example</code></code></code>
Code inside code, hmmmm. Saying browsers should just ignore it is not
a decent argument. I'd like to here why the above should be valid.
I can't see a logical distinction from a CODE element, that is
contained within a CODE element, and a non-nested CODE element.
Now this seems perfectly fine to me,
<code>Hit <key>Q</key> to quit</code>
since KEY has a logical distinction from CODE. I'm saying that each
element above should not contain itself.
--ewh