Re: ERROR(?) in content declarations for character tags

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: Murray Maloney: "Re: ERROR(?) in content declarations for character tags"
• Previous message: Peter Flynn: "Re: ERROR(?) in content declarations for character tags"
• Maybe in reply to: Earl Hood: "Re: ERROR(?) in content declarations for character tags "
• Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: ERROR(?) in content declarations for character tags "

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 11:41:29 EDT
Message-id: <199409231537.KAA02689@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)

> > Does this make sense:
> > 
> > 	<code>This <code>is <code>an example</code></code></code>
> 
> No, but unless I missed something, the original point was to allow, eg
> 
> <strong>You must not type <code>x=n</code> but <code>set x to n</code></stron
> g>
> 
> where the cited code would be in bold typewriter where possible.

I'm not arguing against that.  STRONG and CODE have logical
distinctions.  I can (now) even see the logical distinction from a '2nd
level' STRONG (i.e STRONG within a STRONG) from a 1st level STRONG
tag.

However, the elements I listed: CODE, SAMP, KBD, KEY; do not appear to
have logical difference when each element is nested within itself.

	--ewh