From previous discussions, some people had suggested possible markup for
life cycle type contents. And personally I will stick to using dl until
there is a better solution.
There is still one thing left unanswered. And that's whether we will be
able to put li inside dl.
Let's consider form we
On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote:
Since the *optional *use of li in dl could solve many problems, may we
have li being valid in dl?
Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as the proposed di element:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho
caio.olive...@openbossa.org wrote:
Hi,
In the June 8, 2012 version, there's a note after the description of
undoManager.item:
Note: Being able to access an arbitrary element in the undo
transaction history is needed to allow
If you've been happily ignoring the W3C's involvement with HTML these past
few years, you can stop reading now. If you got a bunch of bugmail
recently and want to know why, the explanation is below.
A few years ago (around 2007), we started working with the W3C on what we
were then
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Alex Bishop alexbis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote:
Since the *optional *use of li in dl could solve many problems, may we
have li being valid in dl?
Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as the proposed di element:
On 20/07/12 10:52 AM, Ian Yang wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Alex Bishopalexbis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote:
Since the *optional *use ofli indl could solve many problems, may we
haveli being valid indl?
Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as
