- From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:28:18 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Chris Moschini wrote: <snip/> > <qa> > <qst>.....?</qst> > <ans> > <qa> > <qst>Did...that?</qst> > <ans>....</ans> > </qa> > </ans> > </qa> > > I actually think this is an excellent model and would be a useful addition to the spec. Note that using the qa wrapper means you can have multiple questions with 1 answer if you like, or multiple answers to one question - both are valid cases and here, semantically valid. You could unfortunately end up with multiple of both, which a confused HTML'er may do - is it possible to specify in the DTD that it's 1+ of one but 1 of the other OR 1 of one and 1+ of the other? Thinking about it, I'd personally prefer having a <qa> element containing one <qst> followed by zero or more <ans>, i.e. <!ELEMENT qa (qst,ans*)>. Otherwise it strikes me as unnecessarily complicated. As Lanny Heidbreder has pointed out, this would make it quite similiar to a definition list, except that <dt> is restricted to Inline content (<qst> and <ans> should really allow Flow, like <dd>). > This would provide a lot of interesting opportunities for UAs, including easily "Googling" the answers to questions, and validating a document to find there's a question you haven't answered ("Error: qa element without at least 1 ans element"). I agree <qst>/<ans> could potentially be useful to software agents; e.g. for a more question-orientated search engine. But I think a <qa> element should contain zero or more <ans> rather than one or more -- on the basis that there're some questions that really shouldn't be answered. ;o) Cheers, Dave
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 17:28:17 UTC