- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:28:30 +0100
Dean Edwards wrote:
>> Introducing this element affects the content model of DL. There are
>> multiple options possible. Either you could permit DI as well. You
>> could require it, or have a mixed content model where you only allow
>> the one or the other depending on your needs.
>
> Couldn't we just allow <li> in <dl> instead? Or have I missed something
> from a previous thread?
There was no previous thread. I guess allowing LI inside DL would be
possible. However, the content model of LI would change when it is
directly inside DL. (In XML Schema you can express such a thing, not
sure if it is possible using DTDs.)
You would get:
DL
LI
DT
DD
And certainly not
DL
LI
%flow
... as LI is defined at the moment for when it is inside UL or OL.
Having a separate element would avoid the confusion and would probably
be better for legacy UAs as well. I haven't tested it yet but I assume
legacy UAs will do something with LI where they will not with DI.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2005 01:28:30 UTC