Closed raffazizzi closed 9 years ago
Seconded. If list items can contain paragraphs (which is more counter-intuitive to my mind), the certainly cells should be able to. I can't connect to that EEBO example, but I can picture a table with cells containing multiple paragraphs with no difficulty.
Original comment by: gabrielbodard
I see no objection to this either.
Original comment by: martindholmes
the only difference between paraContent and specialPara is the following elements
ab eTree forest graph l listForest p schemaSpec sp spGrp tree u
so the distinction is quite subtle. I am making the change now. if it doesnt break, and there is no shouting, I will close this ticket.
Original comment by: sebastianrahtz
Original comment by: sebastianrahtz
The current content model of
<cell>
is macro.paraContent; I suggest that it be changed to macro.specialPara, to make it the same as<item>
, on the grounds that lists and tables are very similar beasts. The effect of the current situation is that<cell>
can contain lists or element Specs, but not<p>
.I cite EEBO
http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_id=xri:eebo&rft_id=xri:eebo:citation:52211822
as evidence for the existence of paragaphs in cells.Original comment by: sebastianrahtz