Re: Definition lists

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:41:16 -0500


Message-Id: <l03110700b002c13a2680@[198.77.183.169]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.3.95.970728083315.-148885D-100000@holly>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:41:16 -0500
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Holger Wahlen <wahlen@ph-cip.Uni-Koeln.DE>
From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
Subject: Re: Definition lists
Cc: www-html@w3.org

At 7:35 AM -0500 07-28-1997, Dave Raggett wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Holger Wahlen wrote:
>I am sympathetic to the stricter model (DT+, DD)+ and would
>like to hear arguments as to why this would be a bad idea.
I'm not keen on what DTD syntax means, but if (DT+, DD)+ means only one DD
per DT, then it *is* a bad idea.  This makes it impossible to have multiple
definitions of a term, especially now that the class attribute exists.  If,
for example, I am defining the term "bad" and wish to allow for various
interpretations:
<DT>bad
<DD CLASS="formal">Something that isn't good.
<DD CLASS="slang">Something that is good.
I'm sure there are many other examples where multiple DD's are a good idea.
There should be an emphasis, however, on avoiding the use of DD to indent
the first lines of paragraphs (as many word processor->HTML converters are
wont to do).

--------------------------------------------------------
[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[            mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------