> > * change to DL content model from (DT*, DD?)+ to (DT | DD)*.
> > OK, I guess.
>
> This doesn't match what was discussed at the Working group meeting
> in Chicago. I thought we had agreed on:
>
> <!ELEMENT DL - - (DT*, DD)+>
>
> This reflects the usual semantics of definition lists with a number
> of synonymous terms for each definition, as well as accounting for
> current usage on the Web. Anyway, this is what I am proposing for
> HTML 3.0.
> --
> Best wishes,
>
> Dave Raggett
I clearly prefer Dave's definition. Much more conformant
to the "common" DTDs (other than HTML, of course...) style.
</Daniel>