Re: Conformance of DL Groups Missing DT or DD

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> The spec isn't entirely clear about the conformance of description lists 
> that omit either the dt or dd of a group.
> 
> The spec states:
> 
> > If a dl element contains only dt elements, then it consists of one 
> > group with names but no values, and the document is non-conforming.
> > 
> > If a dl element contains only dd elements, then it consists of one 
> > group with values but no names, and the document is non-conforming.
> 
> That makes the following non-conforming:
> 
> <dl>
>   <dd>A description without a term
> </dl>
> 
> <dl>
>   <dt>A term without a description
> </dl>
> 
> > If a dl element starts with one or more dd elements, then the first 
> > group has no associated name.
> > 
> > If a dl element ends with one or more dt elements, then the last group 
> > has no associated value.
> 
> It is not clear whether the following lists are conforming or not. e.g.
> 
> <dl>
>   <dd>A description without a term
> 
>   <dt>Term
>   <dd>Term description.
> </dl>
> 
> (And similarly for lists ending with <dt>)
> 
> Since the list does contain both dt and dd, and contains more than one 
> group, it doesn't match either of the first 2 conditions.  Given that 
> it's non-conforming for a list to contain only a single group without 
> either dt or dd, it would seem logical for any group missing either 
> terms or descriptions to be non-conforming as well.  Please make this 
> clearer in the spec.

I've tried to make this clearer, mostly by relying only on the content 
model descriptions to define conformance.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'