| o LI terms can include <P> breaks for UL and OL lists
I agree
| o DT terms can be arbitrarily long and are wrapped onto the
line below
You have to allow anything (almost) to be arbitrarily long as things
will be egnerated automatically from other things, and arbitrary
limits are then a pain.
| It might be an improvement to emulate the approach used by Latex as
in:
...
| TERMS ARE IN A BIG FONT while their definitions follow in the
normal font
| and wrap round with a margin indent.
|
| versus the HTML guidelines which suggest:
|
| TERMS ARE IN A BIG FONT while their defintions follow in
the normal
| font and wrap round with a margin
indent.
This is just a preferance of the reader and the client app writer.
| I would further like to have the freedom to embed lists, e.g. OL in
UL and
| vice versa, but allowing only one level of embedding, e.g.
I think we should stick to a non-nested structure for HTML and get it
registered as a simple format. Nested structured into HTML2 which we
can all discuss when HTML is registered with IANA. Reasonable?
| My implementation of lists is fairly relaxed whilst being able to
support
| smooth scrolling of arbitrary length HTML documents. The processing
demands
| for this require the browser to be able parse backwards -
This could be regarded as a weird way of doing things though it
doesn't use any memeory at all I see. Most people would I think just
store the lot.
| Cheers for now (the Pub is bekoning)
A'roight fer some, mate.. ;-)
| Dave Raggett
Tim Berners-Lee