- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:43:19 +0200
- To: "Thomas Broyer" <t.broyer@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:47:59 +0200, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com> wrote: > 2007/7/2, Charles McCathieNevile: >> There are a number of cases where a term might be listed >> without a definition. > > Probably, but then shouldn't an empty <dd> be provided? (actually, a > <dd> with an ellipsis or a "to be defined" content would probably be > better) > > Could you give examples of some of these cases? I cannot find any > apart from the "to be defined" one. The cases that I have in mind are all broadly "to be defined". But I do not see that I should have to provide an empty definition. The natural approach would be to build a list of terms, and add definitions as appropriate. The current algorithm precludes that, assuming that the behaviour it prescribes (which includes having an empty dd rather than not having an element) is natural to authors. The proposal provides a way to offer authors a choice of what they want to represent. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 16:43:29 UTC