- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:16:58 +0000
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > 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.) > In general, the ability, or lack thereof, to express a given constraint in any schema language has been regarded as an unimportant consideration for Web Forms content models (and hence, by inference, is unimportant for Web Apps content models) . Therefore this isn't a good argument against using <li> in this way. On the other hand, if legacy UAs have some problem with <li> outside a HTML 4 list container, that would be a good argument against this (IMHO rather attractive) proposal. I'd be surprised if that were the case though since such a restriction would probably break real sites.
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2005 07:16:58 UTC