Ordered list syntax.
jelks at jelks.nu
Sun Mar 28 14:09:35 EST 2004
A quick clarification, since I see this issue has already been decided on
Lou Quillio wrote:
>> Or use your *own* DTD!
> Umm, dude? Dude? Who's gonna do that?
The W3C created 1.1 Modularization for the express purpose of allowing users
to do just that.
> Doesn't that trail lead to everybody having their own pseudomarkup,
> their own parsers, and their own DTDs to make sense of them?
We weren't talking about adding <foo> elements (although that can certainly
be done), just adding several attributes from 1.0 Transitional to a slightly
modified 1.0 Strict DTD. Then not only is your schema documented, your
documents validatable, but browsers do what's expected -- the best of all
Email me off-list if you'd like to know how (it's really not difficult at
To John: I think you were pretty much between a rock and a hard place on
this, and given that you had to decided to stick with emitting XHTML 1.0
Strict, you made probably the best choice possible. I (and a number of
others) don't care for emitted inline CSS (shades of MS Word!:), but in our
granted rather infrequent use of alternate list-style numbering, there's
always fallback to embedded HTML.
In the meantime, everyone go [scream at the W3C] until they fix this. I
[did so] a year and a half ago. If they get overwhelmed continually on
this issue, they might actually do something about it within the next six
More information about the Markdown-discuss