Re: DL content model

Goran Oberg (Goran.Oberg@dc.luth.se)
Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:40:58 EST

> > * 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)+>

Doesn't this allow the following?

<DL>
<DD>Definition without preceding term</DD>
</DL>

And if it does, wouldn't

<!ELEMENT DL - - (DT+, DD)+>

be more sensible? Or am I missing something?

Wkr

/G

--
 G|ran \berg       University of Lule}, SWEDEN          Student MSc CS
 K}rhusv{gen 5:601 http://www.luth.se/~goggi/           Adm./CoAdm. of
 S-976 54 Lule}    goggi@dc.luth.se           {www,wais,ftp,gopher}.luth.se
______________________________________________________________________________