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 <>
> To: DITA TC List <>
> 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.
