- From: David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:36:08 +0200
- To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org
On 2005-05-26 20:40, Kelly Miller wrote: > David Håsäther wrote: > >> 3. In the "XHTML List Module"[4], the content model for dl is: >> >> label?, (( dt | dd)+ | di+) >> >> This means that the definition data can appear before the term, which >> would be illogical. This should be changed to: >> >> label?, ((dt, dd)+ | di+) I guess I didn't give this much thought. This should probably be better: label?, ((dt+, dd+)+ | di+) >> (dt, dd)+ What I meant was: (dt+, dd+) Sorry. > Actually, I'd say it should be label?, ((dt+, dd*)+) (this creates a > list of just dt's, or dt's with dd's, but no lists that start with dd's > or only contain dd's). > > It is possible to have a term without a definition (though it makes > sense), but having a definition without a term makes no sense. I'm not sure I agree using a definition list with only terms, and no definitions makes sense, though. Can't think of any circumstances where that would be appropriate, got any examples? (I hope I didn't mess up something, content model-wise again :-) ) -- David Håsäther
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 19:38:45 UTC