Re: Description Lists (and other unusual variations)"Tony Johnson (415) 926 2278" <TONYJ@scs.slac.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 10:27 PDT
From: "Tony Johnson (415) 926 2278" <TONYJ@scs.slac.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Description Lists (and other unusual variations)
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"email@example.com" , in%"firstname.lastname@example.org"
X-Vms-Cc: TONYJ, in%"www-talk@nxoc01.CERN.CH"
>In "http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu:80/SDG/Software/MacSoftDesc.html" you have
>used an unusual variant of description lists:
> <DT> <I> Version: </I> 1.0
> <DT> <I> System requirements: </I>
>There are <DT> tags without any corresponding <DD> tags. Currently, the
>HTML spec seems to require each <DT> to be paired with a <DD>.
>Furthermore there must be at least one <DT> in the list.
Speaking of unusual variations....in
<li><h2> Stuff </h2>
<li><h2> More Stuff </h2>
elsewhere I have seen the complimentary
<h1>This is <ul><li>some<li>stuff</ul></h1>
Clearly someone has found such constructs useful, but they seem to be against my
feelings for what <h1>/<h2> mean, and are unlikely to produce the desired
results on most existing browsers.
Do people feel that constructs such as this should be supported?
Presumably the DTD says something explicit about whether the above is legal HTML
or not, but (hoepfully) most off the people producing HTML will not (want) to
read the DTD, so I feel that (in addition to the DTD) a document that describes
in a more informal way which combination of tags is likely to be portable across
browsers is badly needed.