At 6/6/2007 01:13 AM, David Dorward wrote:
On 5 Jun 2007, at 19:22, Paul Novitski wrote:
The FIELDSET definition could easily have included:
(INPUT|SELECT|TEXTAREA|BUTTON)+
or:
(%formctrl)+
But it doesn't.
And if it did then the fieldset couldn't contain elements that add
extra semantic information about the form controls, their labels, and
their relationships to each other.
Well, not really. The syntax allows us to eat our cake and have it, too:
((#PCDATA,LEGEND,(%flow;)*,(%formctrl)+)
If I'm wielding the syntax right, that gives you all the flexibility
of the current element definition while still requiring at least one
form control per fieldset. Or maybe it needs room for more %flow
elements, like:
((#PCDATA,LEGEND,(%flow;)*,(%formctrl,(%flow;)*)+)
one chunk of character data, followed by:
one legend, followed by:
zero or more flow elements, followed by:
one or more:
form control, followed by:
zero or more flow elements
Mind you, FIELDSET's current content model definition doesn't look
quite right to me:
(#PCDATA,LEGEND,(%flow;)*)
I read this to say, "required character data followed by a required
LEGEND element followed by zero or more flow elements." This would
appear to obviate the LEGEND coming first in the markup inside the FIELDSET:
<fieldset><legend>This is a legend</legend>...
Where's the PCDATA between <fieldset> and <legend>? Unless there's
something about the syntax I'm not understanding, the content mode
should make the PCDATA optional:
((#PCDATA)*,LEGEND,(%flow;)*)
The DTD almost always errs towards the liberal, it is expected that
documents be written according to the prose of the specification and
not just the machine readable components of it.
That's a very interesting assertion and gets right to the heart of
many of the debates on this list. It sounds counter-intuitive to me:
I would expect the prose to be more liberal than the machine-readable
DTD. Can you recall the source of that expectation? If we could
nail that one down it would certainly help clear up much of the
apparent tension between the very specific DTD and the comparatively
loose descriptive passages of the spec.
I read the HTML spec as an annotated DTD, using prose to discuss and
exemplify the element and attribute definitions for us mushy wetware
types. Every section of the spec begins by quoting the DTD and then
discussing those definitions. On a quick re-reading of the spec's
introductory sections I don't see where we're advised to place more
authority in the prose than in the DTD.
Just to maintain perspective let me add that I'm pursuing this aspect
of the discussion NOT as a campaign for fieldsets without form
controls (I feel that part of the debate has been laid to rest) but
rather because I want to better understand the DTD and its
relationship to the spec, especially in a case like this where they
appear to contradict.
Regards,
Paul
__________________________
Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
