Ordered list syntax.

Jelks Cabaniss 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
for Markdown.

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][1] until they fix this.  I
[did so][2] 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
years.  :)

[1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/#www-html
[2]: http://tinyurl.com/3h247


More information about the Markdown-discuss mailing list