Re: Comments on the XHTML 2.0 WD

David Håsäther wrote:

> 3. In the "XHTML List Module"[4], the content model for dl is:
>
>   label?, (( dt | dd)+ | di+)
>
> This means that the definition data can appear before the term, which 
> would be illogical. This should be changed to:
>
>   label?, ((dt, dd)+ | di+)
>
> Also, the content model for di is:
>
>   ( dt+, dd*)
>
> This means that no definition data is required. Unless there is a 
> specific reason for this, it should be changed to:
>
>   (dt, dd)+
>

Actually, I'd say it should be label?, ((dt+, dd*)+) (this creates a 
list of just dt's, or dt's with dd's, but no lists that start with dd's 
or only contain dd's).

It is possible to have a term without a definition (though it makes 
sense), but having a definition without a term makes no sense.

-- 
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ - Get Firefox!
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ - Reclaim Your Inbox!