Re: Comments on the XHTML 2.0 WD

On 2005-05-26 20:40, Kelly Miller wrote:
> David Håsäther wrote:
> 
>> 3. In the "XHTML List Module"[4], the content model for dl is:
>>
>>   label?, (( dt | dd)+ | di+)
>>
>> This means that the definition data can appear before the term, which 
>> would be illogical. This should be changed to:
>>
>>   label?, ((dt, dd)+ | di+)

I guess I didn't give this much thought. This should probably be better:

   label?, ((dt+, dd+)+ | di+)

>>   (dt, dd)+

What I meant was:

   (dt+, dd+)

Sorry.

> Actually, I'd say it should be label?, ((dt+, dd*)+) (this creates a 
> list of just dt's, or dt's with dd's, but no lists that start with dd's 
> or only contain dd's).
> 
> It is possible to have a term without a definition (though it makes 
> sense), but having a definition without a term makes no sense.

I'm not sure I agree using a definition list with only terms, and no 
definitions makes sense, though. Can't think of any circumstances where 
that would be appropriate, got any examples?

(I hope I didn't mess up something, content model-wise again :-) )

-- 
David Håsäther