- From: E. Stephen Mack <estephen@emf.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:18:33 -0700
- To: www-html@w3.org
At 7:35 AM -0500 07-28-1997, Dave Raggett wrote: >> I am sympathetic to the stricter model (DT+, DD)+ and would >> like to hear arguments as to why this would be a bad idea. Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu> > [...] if (DT+, DD)+ means only one DD > per DT, then it *is* a bad idea. This makes it impossible to have multiple > definitions of a term, especially now that the class attribute exists. One could just as easily argue that you should be able to have multiple terms with the same definition, such as <DT>bad <DT>awful <DD>Something that isn't good. or even multiple terms with multiple definitions. I don't see anything wrong with requiring that there must first be one or more terms and then one or more definitions (making it impossible to start with a definition, or to have only one definition without any terms or only one term without any definitions. Does (DT+, DD+)+ do the trick? -- E. Stephen Mack <estephen@emf.net> http://www.emf.net/~estephen/
Received on Monday, 28 July 1997 17:17:22 UTC