- From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:41:16 -0500
- To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Holger Wahlen <wahlen@ph-cip.Uni-Koeln.DE>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
At 7:35 AM -0500 07-28-1997, Dave Raggett wrote: >On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Holger Wahlen wrote: >I am sympathetic to the stricter model (DT+, DD)+ and would >like to hear arguments as to why this would be a bad idea. I'm not keen on what DTD syntax means, but if (DT+, DD)+ means only one DD per DT, then it *is* a bad idea. This makes it impossible to have multiple definitions of a term, especially now that the class attribute exists. If, for example, I am defining the term "bad" and wish to allow for various interpretations: <DT>bad <DD CLASS="formal">Something that isn't good. <DD CLASS="slang">Something that is good. I'm sure there are many other examples where multiple DD's are a good idea. There should be an emphasis, however, on avoiding the use of DD to indent the first lines of paragraphs (as many word processor->HTML converters are wont to do). -------------------------------------------------------- [ Jordan Reiter ] [ mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu ] [ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ] [ The universe got you involved." --Hal Lipset, P.I. ] --------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 28 July 1997 16:53:16 UTC