Re: List Item (LI) Suggestion
"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 01:03:53 EDT
Message-id: <9409120501.AA05282@austin2.hal.com>
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: List Item (LI) Suggestion
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
In message <199409102351.AA03985@char.vnet.net>, Stan Newton writes:
>
>1. The MENU and DIR list definitions are specifically designed for
>rendering Menu like lists and Directory listings, respectively. Some sources
>suggest that DIR rendering should be multi-column. These are
>really both inconsistent with the definition of LI as a container for
>block items.
Sound reasonable. Anybody feel strongly one way or the other about
this? I think we can change MENU and DIR to exclude block items
(via exclusion exceptions, not by a change to the LI element, I'm
afraid.)
>2. The broad content definition for LI when used requires end tags for
>proper delineation of the range of the LI content. When used this way, the
></LI> tag cannot be optional except under certain very narrow cases.
I don't believe this is the case. Could you give an example where
</LI> cannot be inferred? Every <LI>, save the first, implies a </LI>
right before it.
>I'm not sure I got all the syntax correct, but my concept is that there are
>should be two kinds of list items, plain (LI) and extended (XLI). End tags
>are optional for LI and required for XLI. LI list items are single paragraph
>entries. XLI list items can contain multiple paragraphs, lists, forms, etc.
>DIR and MENU lists should allow only LI content while OL and UL can allow
>either.
We can make this distinction without introducing an XLI tag (which
would be a very expensive change at this point)...
<!ELEMENT (OL|UL) (LI)+>
<!ELEMENT (DIR|MENU) (LI)+ -(%block)>
Dan