[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Re: Discuss list processing expectations
This time hopefully without the Yahoo junk... I'm still against using the same element in both block and inline contexts. If DITA provided an <inline-ul> (or whatever) for use in the example Paul gave I'd be OK with it. I still feel that block elements should be used only in block contexts, and inline elements in inline contexts. Paul's example would then be marked up as follows: <p>In order to install Acme Pro Plus Plus, your system must meet the following requirements: <inline-ul> <li>Pentium 4 CPU or later</li> <li>1 GB RAM or more</li> <li>At least 350 MB free disk space</li> </inline-ul> unless you are running the Limited version of the product. </p> Obviously we're not going to change the DTDs for 1.2, but perhaps we could consider an inline unordered list element for a future release, when we can improve on the current situation where <ul> functions as both block and inline. For 1.2, maybe we should provide Paul's example as an exception to the general rule, and maybe even state that a future DITA release may provide a different inline element for this purpose? Note also I said the spec should encourage the best practice via "should", so users using mixed markup are not going against the spec. Gershon ----- Original Message ---- > From: Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com> > To: DITA TC List <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 5:18:01 PM > Subject: RE: [dita] Re: Discuss list processing expectations > > I'd second what Paul says - I know a lot of users who would get upset if > the spec told them they could not include the samples Paul gives inside a > single paragraph.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]