W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2000

Re: Valid positioning of script elements

From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 21:24:55 +0200
To: www-html@w3.org
Cc: JOrendorff@ixl.com
Message-ID: <388tjs0pb2sm88f4hh8m012spgn9hcnrph@4ax.com>
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:01:15 -0400 , JOrendorff@ixl.com wrote:


>In fact, I think even the HTML 4 Strict DTD has some real
>ugly bits.

It has, but maybe it's not at its worst in the block/inline area...

>For one thing, the distinction between "inline" and "block"
>elements is bogus, largely a concession to style.

Sure, but I'd guess that most DTD's have additional prose descriptions
of what would be the "processing expectations" for defined elements.

HTML's 'block/inline' thingy is basically just the same, a way to
describe "processing expectations" for elements, that may go back to the
"Typical Rendering" prose of RFC1866.

>You can't <em>phasize a sequence of paragraphs.
>Well, why not?

Because someone at one time decided that <P> was not to be allowed in
the content model of <EM>, simple as that.

FWIW, you can't do that in e.g. DocBook either, and after all DocBook
has a much better thought out DTD than what HTML has ever had.

The 'Emphasis' element in DocBook can not contain any one of the
'FormalPara', 'Para' or 'SimPara' elements.

OTOH, 'Emphasis' can be contained in 'Para' and 'SimPara'
(but not directly in 'FormalPara' of course)

And 'Emphasis' is described in DocBook prose to have an 'inline' type of
"processing expectation"

Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2000 15:18:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:54 UTC