- From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:19:09 -0400
- To: Martin Konicek <konicekmartin@seznam.cz>
- Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
Martin Konicek wrote: > > I found this part of XHTML1.1 DTD: > > <!ELEMENT ul (li)+> > > I thing, it's not usefull to strictly requested <li>, because for > practical use, you could have this problem. > > Some script: > <ul> > <loop><li>some row</li></loop> > </ul> > > There is problem, in fact is many situation, where you have no data > and you will get this results: > > <ul></ul> > > I thing it's better to accapt this as correct. I thing, there is no > problem with this code, element <ul> in practice could be emty, why not? > > //Martin Konicek > > if you want to do a loop in a script set a class on the looped attribute(s) and go that way, I see no point in loosening <ul> for a "hey this might be possible" Plus, what would you say <ul></ul> (or more specific in XHTML <ul />) would do...to me it would be a headache for any speach processor, and just stuck there openly would be hard to STRUCTURELY accept. you need at least one list-item in a [unordered]-List, you can't really call it a list without at least one item, can you (imho it should restrict to at least two items, but thats just me). ~Justin Wood
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 13:20:45 UTC