- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:32:36 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 03:33:13 UTC