[rfc-i] Update to the v3 format document: draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-01
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Feb 12 11:47:10 PST 2014
On 2014-02-12 20:39, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Should <li> have an anchor attribute? <t> appears to have it, and their significance in the document is analogous.
Almost everything should be allowed to have it.
(and yes, I'll come up with a separate list change proposal)
> I'm curious about this:
> <list style="symbols">
> <li>This is the first element with a bullet.</li>
> <li>This is the second element with a bullet.
> <t>This is part of the second element,
> but it does not have a bullet</t></li>
You shouldn't be allowed to do that.
> <li>This is the third element with a bullet.</li>
> Is it valid for the second <li> to contain two <t> elements instead of a text element and a <t> element? If so, it might be preferable expressed that way, although I don't think there's anything wrong with allowing the above syntax in principle.
I think it's a sign of sloppy vocabulary design. We can support both
inline elements (text, <xref>) and block elements (<t>), but why would
we want to allow to combine them?
> I'm still reading, but I figured I'd ship these off so that you might see them and comment before the call. Not that it's crucial.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest