Re: June 15 draft -- DL

Albert Lunde (
Fri, 16 Jun 95 14:02:14 EDT

At 1:04 PM 6/16/95, David Morris wrote:
>Hence on the alter of 'current practice', I would vote for no change
>in the current draft's intent. I'm personally not very satisfied
>with current rendering practice so would rather defer providing more
>required complications until we can take the time and reflect on the
>verbage. Definition lists are almost tables and I can surely provide
>a more satisfying <DL> appearance with the deployed table support
>than I can with <DL> support. Hence, I would suggest that the
>TABLE document/RFC might include <DL> as a candidate for improvement
>as well. Or perhaps we have a clean-up RFC.
>TO sumarize. I recommend for no change.
>Dave Morris

Also, didn't we go thru a discussion of this content model months back?

    Albert Lunde