W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > April 2011

Re: HTML5 P and UL

From: Seth Call <sethcall@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:03:53 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTikTFKrMW5JOXobtj57XrBwAfXuYNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
Or make a new list tag definition that is inline-only and therefore can be
used in <p>.

(discussions such of these make me wish I could just use something like
docbook or dita within HTML, because really an incremental patch such as
this just continues to highlight how difficult it is to represent structured
text with just HTML and that fuller implementations already exist).


On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <
jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

> Pol Briand wrote:
>  Semantically, paragraphs (P elements) may contain one or several LIST
>> (UL or OL elements).
> That's more about syntax than about semantics, and whether a paragraph may
> contain lists is debatable, at a general level of discussion as opposite to
> HTML specifically. In HTML, it has always been a rule that a <p> eleement
> may contain "text-level" or "inline" or "phrasing" content only - no <ul> or
> <ol> elements for example.
> If you are suggesting that HTML should be modified to allow lists inside
> <p>, then I'm afraid the suggestion has no hope of being accepted. The main
> reason is that such a change would break existing pages.
> In HTML as currently defined, if you have, say,
> <p>foobar<ul>
> then a browser is required to infer a missing </p> before the <ul> tag,
> i.e. an <ul> element implicitly closes an open <p> element. This is because
> <ul> is not allowed inside <p> and the <p> element is defined as having an
> optional closing. If <ul> were allowed inside <p>, then where would the <p>
> element end?
> It would be a different thing to prose a "superparagraph" element that may
> contain lists and perhaps other block contents as well, such as a
> blockquote, a pre element, or a table. I don't think it would be very
> realistic either (there's hardly any practical necessity for such an
> element, and practical benefits are more or less debatable), but it would
> have better chances than an essential change to an existing element.
> --
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 14:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:27 UTC