Re: block (%blocklevel;) as opposed to block (%blocklevel; | %inline

E. Stephen Mack (
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:51:59 -0700

Message-Id: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:51:59 -0700
From: "E. Stephen Mack" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: Re: block (%blocklevel;) as opposed to block (%blocklevel; |   %inline

Neil St.Laurent ( really panicked me with
the note about block now being defined as ( %blocklevel; )
instead of ( %blocklevel; | %inline; )...

...but, Neil, please make sure you state WHICH version of
HTML 4.0 draft DTDs you are talking about.  There is the
"strict" version [1] and the "loose" version [2], both
referenced from the W3C's HTML 4.0 page [3].

The change you're talking about is only in the "strict" DTD,
not the "loose" DTD.  For anyone using the loose DTD, the
definitions HAVE NOT changed.

>I suppose this has probably been discussed and been rationalized 
>fully, but I think there should be a big bold note in the HTML 4.0 
>site at W3 stating the change:

Given that most people will be using the loose DTD, I don't
think this big bold note is required.

>Noting that simple constructs like
>   <LI>Hello
>   <LI>There
>are now invalid and should be:
>   <LI><P>Hello
>   <LI><P>There

True -- but only if you're writing to the strict DTD.

Given that, I think this a rational and sane change that most
of us would not disagree with.

E. Stephen Mack <>