Re: (X)HTML DTD <ul> stricly request <li>

Martin Konicek wrote:

>
> I found this part of XHTML1.1 DTD:
>
> <!ELEMENT ul (li)+>
>
> I thing, it's not usefull to strictly requested <li>, because for 
> practical use, you could have this problem.
>
> Some script:
> <ul>
>    <loop><li>some row</li></loop>
> </ul>
>
> There is problem, in fact is many situation, where you have no data 
> and you will get this results:
>
> <ul></ul>
>
> I thing it's better to accapt this as correct. I thing, there is no 
> problem with this code, element <ul> in practice could be emty, why not?
>
> //Martin Konicek
>
>
if you want to do a loop in a script set a class on the looped 
attribute(s) and go that way, I see no point in loosening <ul> for a 
"hey this might be possible"

Plus, what would you say <ul></ul> (or more specific in XHTML <ul />) 
would do...to me it would be a headache for any speach processor, and 
just stuck there openly would be hard to STRUCTURELY accept.

you need at least one list-item in a [unordered]-List, you can't really 
call it a list without at least one item, can you (imho it should 
restrict to at least two items, but thats just me).

~Justin Wood