Re: DL content model

Murray Maloney (murray@sco.COM)
Wed, 16 Nov 94 16:14:09 EST

> On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Peter Flynn wrote:
> > Bert wrote:
> > > I haven't seen (DT+|DD+)* yet, wouldn't that express everything people
> > > asked for: one or more terms with one or more definitions?
> >
> > One would have thought so, but the reality is that DL has been used for
> > other purposes, so if we are trying to make the DTD reflect practice as
> > well as intent, we need to handle cases where there are zero or more DTs
> > and DDs.
> >
> > I know of many files where DD has been used on its own to make some text
> > indent.
> ..which is contrary to the intent of DL course. Content providers can't
> exactly be faulted for misusing semantic tags for their presentational
> effects since they don't otherwise have control over presentation -
> my own site violates just about every rule in the book (I've had a lot of
> fun with the validation service, and Arena's "Bad HTML" warnings :)
> However, the fact that people are misusing HTML now shouldn't be an
> excuse to officially "allow" that.
> So I initially thought that (DT+|DD+)+ would be proper - but then someone
> brought up the case of dynamically generated lists and that empty <DL>'s
> would be good in that case. If so, then does it make sense to suggest
> that there be no non-white-space between <DL> and </DL> if there's no
> <DT> anywhere?

The DTD cannot prevent white space occurring between tags.
However, such whitespace should not be meaningful.
I also think that (DT+|DD+)+ is the right thing to do,
or close enough that I'd be happy with it, but...
> Brian
> --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Your slick hype/tripe/wipedisk/zipped/zippy/whine/online/sign.on.the.ish/oil
> pill/roadkill/grease.slick/neat.trick is great for what it is. -- Wired Fan #3