- From: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:41:58 -0500
- To: www-html@w3.org
[following up on my earlier post about DL] >> The HTML 2.0 specification contained the following in the >> description of DL: >> >> | The content of a <DL> element is a sequence of <DT> elements >> | and/or <DD> elements, usually in pairs. Multiple <DT> may be >> | paired with a single <DD> element. Documents should not >> | contain multiple consecutive <DD> elements. >> >> Nevertheless, the declaration in the DTD was >> <!ELEMENT DL - - (DT | DD)+>, >> allowing an arbitrary sequence. This declaration has remained >> unchanged in 3.2 and also in the 4.0 draft, whereas the >> respective texts don't contain the precise remarks about >> element repetitions any more: The 3.2 spec just gives an >> example for such a list, nothing more, the draft says that >> "list items consist of two parts: an initial label and a >> description", but still fails to explain precisely which >> sequence is recommended, allowed or required. >> >> Does that mean that any order is now considered `proper', or >> has that part just been overlooked when the specs were >> written? If the latter, why isn't the "should not" from the >> quote above made a "must not" by choosing (DT+, DD)+ as the >> content (which would, in addition, eliminate the possibility >> of a DD as the first element in such a list)? > >I think the form of this part the HTML 2.0 DTD was discussed on the IETF >html-wg list. I don't recall the details but I think it >was a deliberate decision at that time, perhaps to follow >pre-existing practice. > Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu Below are URLs to prior discussions of the content model of DL from the html-wg (who wrote the HTML 2.0 spec). These are roughly in thread order, as per the archives: http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0235.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0238.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0241.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0243.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0248.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0261.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0264.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0265.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0284.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0291.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0295.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0299.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0237.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0259.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0269.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0301.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0306.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0310.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0313.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0316.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0318.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0323.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q1.messages/0771.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q2.messages/1322.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q2.messages/1321.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q2.messages/1318.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q2.messages/1312.html http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q2.messages/1311.html A number of content models were suggested... Here's a few quotes out of context to suggest what was on people's minds: = = = >We talked about this at the meeting in Chicago, and I was >never happy with the result. It is undoubtedly true that >a document can have multiple terms followed by a single >definition, and a single term with multiple definitions. >While it is possible to argue that a similar visual effect >can be achieved by using <BR> or <P> elements within either >a <DT> or <DD>, that is not the point. > > >I think that the content model for DL should be: > > ><!ELEMENT DL - - (DT+,DD+)*> > > >The verbiage could go like this: > > >The content of a DL element is a sequence of DT elements >and DD elements, usually in pairs. However, multiple >DT elements may be paired with a single DD element, and >a single DT may be paired with multiple DD elements. > > >I have probably overlooked some obvious reason why someone >would want to have a <DT>+ without any corresponding <DD>, >or vice-versa. I'm sure that some kind soul will point out >the error of my ways. Thanks in advance. :-) = = = >Basically, the DTD defines what is legal. One of the problems though >is backward compatability with legacy documents. Many HTML documents >use only DDs within DLs. I believe the specification text is trying to >instruct on the intended usage of the DL element. > = = = >> Ok... we're trying to specify current practice, but we have on many >> occasions decided that some practices are bogus and won't be part of >> the standard. > > >I'm still not convinced we should specify current practice where it's >as bogus as (DT|DD)+. Either DL is a discussion list (in which case we >want something like (DT+|DD*)*) or it's not (in which case we allow >almost anything). > > >If users are random enough to have used DD to indent a paragraph when >they could have used BLOCKQUOTE I don't think we should encourage them. >Better we should plan for align= and margin= in the future. > > = = = --- Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
Received on Monday, 28 July 1997 20:42:14 UTC