Matthew Raymond wrote:
Dean Edwards wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
I did a quick test, and using in a produces a bullet on
Firefox, IE and Opera, whereas and the complete lack of a parent
element did not. So, didn't break anything, but it really didn't
have the desired rendering on legacy b
Dean Edwards wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
I did a quick test, and using in a produces a bullet on
Firefox, IE and Opera, whereas and the complete lack of a parent
element did not. So, didn't break anything, but it really didn't
have the desired rendering on legacy browsers. This alone it
Matthew Raymond wrote:
I did a quick test, and using in a produces a bullet on
Firefox, IE and Opera, whereas and the complete lack of a parent
element did not. So, didn't break anything, but it really didn't
have the desired rendering on legacy browsers. This alone it a good
argument fo
James Graham wrote:
In general, the ability, or lack thereof, to express a given constraint
in any schema language has been regarded as an unimportant consideration
for Web Forms content models (and hence, by inference, is unimportant
for Web Apps content models) . Therefore this isn't a good ar
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Dean Edwards wrote:
Introducing this element affects the content model of DL. There are
multiple options possible. Either you could permit DI as well. You
could require it, or have a mixed content model where you only allow
the one or the other depending on your needs.
Ben Meadowcroft wrote:
If we're intent on producing an "HTML 5" specification which introduces
enhancements beyond improving the form controls etc I don't see why we are
debating the content model of DL's etc in this forum? Surely we should
discuss it in the context of XHTML 2.0 and when that is re
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: 12 March 2005 09:29
> To: Dean Edwards
> Cc: WHAT WG List
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] [html5] DI element
>
>
> Dean Edwards wrote:
> >
Dean Edwards wrote:
Introducing this element affects the content model of DL. There are
multiple options possible. Either you could permit DI as well. You
could require it, or have a mixed content model where you only allow
the one or the other depending on your needs.
Couldn't we just allow in
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Introducing this element affects the content model of DL. There are
multiple options possible. Either you could permit DI as well. You could
require it, or have a mixed content model where you only allow the one
or the other depending on your needs.
Couldn't we just allo
*Anne van Kesteren* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The advantage of DI is that it allows grouping of definitions
ACK
and therefore takes away the importance of element order.
So you want to put 'dt' after 'dd'? Seems strange to me.
From a structural point of view it is very difficult for current DL
element
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Cool. I hadn't really thought about this situation. Let's see if I
can fit it into my previous / proposal:
Isn't that just the proposal from XHTML 2.0? Also, that is not backwards
compatible.
It's similar, but I've elaborated on it significantly.
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Cool. I hadn't really thought about this situation. Let's see if I
can fit it into my previous / proposal:
Isn't that just the proposal from XHTML 2.0? Also, that is not backwards
compatible.
I support including both SECTION and DI. But if SECTION isn't
required, I cannot
Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
How about the following example (doesn't nicely fit the western document
authoring style, but anyway):
HEADING1
This is a paragraph related to heading 1.
This is a paragraph related to heading 1.
HEADING 1.1
This is
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:23:52 +0200, Mikko Rantalainen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it's kinda double. But hey, maybe I'm missing something?
... which you show me by...
> HEADING1
>
> This is a paragraph related to heading 1.
>
> This is a paragraph related to h
Rob Mientjes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:58:33 +0100, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The advantage of DI is that it allows grouping of definitions and
Well, I'm not sure if it's not already clear that, without a
definition term, there can be no new definition descriptions. It is on
Rob Mientjes wrote:
The advantage of DI is that it allows grouping of definitions and
therefore takes away the importance of element order. It also has a
semantic advantage to group these elements. From a structural
point of view it is very difficult for current DL element
constructs to see which
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:58:33 +0100, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The advantage of DI is that it allows grouping of definitions and
> therefore takes away the importance of element order. It also has a
> semantic advantage to group these elements. From a structural point of
> view
Introducing this element affects the content model of DL. There are
multiple options possible. Either you could permit DI as well. You could
require it, or have a mixed content model where you only allow the one
or the other depending on your needs.
Personally I would vote for requiring it. A s
18 matches
Mail list logo
