Re: The <address> element. ERROR in the html 3.2 dtd

Olle Jarnefors (ojarnef@admin.kth.se)
Mon, 10 Jun 96 16:03:45 +0200


Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 16:03:45 +0200
Message-Id: <9606101403.AA13970@mercutio.admin.kth.se>
From: Olle Jarnefors <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>
To: www-html@w3.org
Cc: Olle Jarnefors <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960609182551.22406D-100000@crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The <address> element. ERROR in the html 3.2 dtd

James Aylett <sja20@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.3.93.960609182551.22406D-100000@crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk>:

> On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Olle Jarnefors wrote:
> 
> > The <ADDRESS> element isn't treated like the ordinary block
> > elements in HTML 2.0, it can't be included in <P> or <LI>
> > elements for example. This is still true in the HTML 3.2 DTD, as

> It doesn't make sense to put <ADDRESS> within either, surely? The address
> is something which comes after the body text, and so it must only be
> within the <HTML> delimiters.

I think it would sometimes make sense to put ADDRESS within a
list. If a document has more than one author, it should be
possible to include their addresses as list elements.

RFC 1866 allows any number of ADDRESS elements anywhere at the
top-level in the BODY element in HTML 2.0. The description of
the semantics of the element type doesn't restrict it to the
author(s) of the HTML document itself. It seems to be intended
to be usable for any address:

:   The <ADDRESS> element contains such information as address, signature
:   and authorship, often at the beginning or end of the body of a
:   document.

Considering this generality, I find the special prohibition
against including ADDRESS elements in block-level elements
puzzling. But I suppose there are good reasons. Does anybody
know which?

-- 
Olle Jarnefors, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>