Re: HTML 3.0 suggestion

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Wed, 27 Sep 1995 12:02:57 -0400


Message-Id: <199509271602.MAA11501@beach.w3.org>
To: "Charlie E. Speight" <speight@cs.unc.edu>
Cc: Carl Benker <benker@ceco.ceco.com>, www-html@www0.cern.ch
Subject: Re: HTML 3.0 suggestion 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Sep 1995 10:49:14 EDT."
             <Pine.ULT.3.90.950927104628.14726C-100000@billings> 
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 12:02:57 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <Pine.ULT.3.90.950927104628.14726C-100000@billings>, "Charlie E. Spe
ight" writes:
>On Wed, 27 Sep 1995, Carl Benker wrote:
>> 
>> How about making list items "containerized"?
>>

List items are containers in the HTML 2.0 standard.

===========
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/html.dtd
 $Id: html.dtd,v 1.30 1995/09/21 23:30:19 connolly Exp $
<!ELEMENT LI    - O %flow>
<!ATTLIST LI
        %SDAFORM; "LItem"
        >

<!-- <LI>               List item                       -->
============

They have been since ... lemme see:

===========
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/ChangeLog

revision 1.8
date: 1994/04/09 01:02:10;  author: connolly;  state: Exp;  lines: +275 -128

[...]

* Changed DL content model to (DT*, DD?)+, changed DT, DD from EMPTY
to containers with omissable end tags. This match all the cases I
found during testing.

* Changed OL, UL, etc. similarly
=====================

I believe they are also containers in the HTML 3.0 draft
specification.

>just a question: if a HTML 3.0 demanded that List items were 
>"containerized", what percentage of HTML documents already in circulation 
>would be rendered incorrectly? 80%? 90%?

The declaration of LI as a container is entirely consistent with
current practice.

Please don't spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Check your
sources before posting. The internet makes this so easy that
there is little excuse not to.

Dan