- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:04:15 +0100
*Anne van Kesteren* <fora at annevankesteren.nl>: > > The advantage of DI is that it allows grouping of definitions ACK > and therefore takes away the importance of element order. So you want to put 'dt' after 'dd'? Seems strange to me. > From a structural point of view it is very difficult for current DL > element constructs to see which (DT, DD) are bound together as a single > entry. IMHO each sequence of one or more 'dt' followed by one or more 'dd' constitute an entry. The current content model of 'dl', "(DT|DD)+", does not require that, though---maybe it should be changed to "(DT+, DD+)+". Likewise, if 'di' was introduced, it should perhaps look something like this: <!ELEMENT DL - - (DI)+ -- definition list --> <!ELEMENT DI - O (DT+, DD+) -- definition item --> OTOH, with 'di' probably even more people would abuse 'dl' for 'table'. > (Styling is another advantage, I've thought about it (before), but I cannot think of a good way to select a number of boxes and build an anonymous one including them to have, for instance, a border around them.
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:04:15 UTC