- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:45:17 -0500
James Graham wrote:
> 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.
I did a quick test, and using <li> in a <dl> produces a bullet on
Firefox, IE and Opera, whereas <di> and the complete lack of a parent
element did not. So, <li> didn't break anything, but it really didn't
have the desired rendering on legacy browsers. This alone it a good
argument for defeating <li> in this context. Plus, there's the
additional fact that <di> is already in the XHTML 2.0 working draft,
which means that it'll be easier to get <di> through W3C than <dl>/<li>.
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2005 07:45:17 UTC