W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2005

[whatwg] WA1: content models of i and dfn

From: R.J.Koppes <rikkert@rikkertkoppes.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:15:24 +0200
Message-ID: <002e01c59049$5eb3a110$6502a8c0@s446964>
let's split up the four cases:

<dfn><dfn /></dfn>
- this is not allowed

<dfn><i /><dfn>
- this makes sense, the defining term can contain an instance of a
previously defined term.

<i><i /></i>
- this would be an instance of the above

<i><dfn /></i>
- maybe this can occur, say you have something like:
<p>The <dfn><abbr title="For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and
Technology">FIRST</abbr> LEGO League</dfn> is a tournament, blahblah</p>
<p>The first word in <i><dfn><abbr title="For Inspiration and Recognition of
Science and Technology">FIRST</abbr></dfn> LEGO League</i> actually is an
abbreviation meaning blahblah</p>

would this be an apropriate example? This is actually similar to case 2, but
the other way around.

Is the order of <dfn> and <i> of importance anyway? should <dfn> always
before any instance of it? would an occurence of an instance before the term
has been defined actually be an instance? (i think order is of no
importance) should there be something about this in the spec?

Rikkert Koppes

----- Original Message -----
From: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
To: <whatwg at whatwg.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] WA1: content models of i and dfn

> fantasai wrote:
> > <dfn> excludes <dfn>. Would it make sense for it to also exclude <i>?
> > And should <i> exclude <i> and/or <dfn>, too?
> > And shouldn't they both require significant inline content?
> Responding to myself.. I think <i> excluding <dfn> would make sense,
> but not the other way around, and <i> should not exclude <i>, but
> both should require significant inline content.
> ~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2005 05:15:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:42 UTC