[whatwg] [html5] DI element

> -----Original Message-----
> From: whatwg-whatwg.org-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
> [mailto:whatwg-whatwg.org-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf
> Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: 12 March 2005 09:29
> To: Dean Edwards
> Cc: WHAT WG List
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] [html5] DI element
> 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.

If we're intent on producing an "HTML 5" specification which introduces
enhancements beyond improving the form controls etc I don't see why we are
debating the content model of DL's etc in this forum? Surely we should
discuss it in the context of XHTML 2.0 and when that is released as a
final recommendation cherry pick the good bits (DLs, sections etc) and
back port them to HTML 5. If XHTML 2.0 becomes adopted in user agents,
like mozilla <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161463>, surely
it is easier for them to also support HTML 5 if they only have a few
important areas of difference, like the web forms enhancements.

Perhaps we should stop thinking of this as HTML 5 and more as EHTML (for
Enhanced HTML) so we can introduce new version numbering etc. We could
start off with EHTML 1 which introduces the Web Forms stuff, then EHTML 2
could be released later which back ports XHTML 2's good features (as well
as new web forms stuff). I think this might make evangelising EHTML a bit
easier, it worked for DHTML after all!

Ben Meadowcroft
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3034 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20050312/71223f07/attachment.bin>

Received on Saturday, 12 March 2005 03:43:25 UTC