On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:32:13 +0100, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: <.. snip> > > As I understand it, these are referred to as "paragraphs" by those in > the legal profession, so surely <p> is a better element for the job than > <li>? Thanks for looking at this, Toby. They are referred to as paragraphs, yes -- but the whole document is an ordered list of paragraphs. Perhaps I should adjust my demonstration markup so that each <li> contains a <p> element that wraps the text, so that it better illustrates this. > > I think most of the cases your proposal covers can be solved by > adjusting the markup, especially with the <ol start> and <li value> > attribute. But I'd rather not use the start and value attributes; I don't want to hardcode the numbers in the markup. > That having been said, I do see the merit in a grouping element within > lists, but not one which allows arbitrary content. Something equivalent > to <tbody> within tables: the content model within the <tbody> is as if > the <tbody> wasn't there. That would be useful, too - but why invent another element when we have a grouping element -- the <div> element? As I asked in my original proposal, what is the objection to allowing groups of arbitrary content with a <div>? It seems to me that unless there is a compelling reason to forbid something, then it should be permissible bruceReceived on Friday, 24 October 2008 13:01:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:38 UTC