Re: Definition lists

E. Stephen Mack (estephen@emf.net)
Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:18:33 -0700


Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970728141833.00ea4d88@emf.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:18:33 -0700
To: www-html@w3.org
From: "E. Stephen Mack" <estephen@emf.net>
Subject: Re: Definition lists
In-Reply-To: <l03110700b002c13a2680@[198.77.183.169]>

At 7:35 AM -0500 07-28-1997, Dave Raggett 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.

Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
> [...] 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.

One could just as easily argue that you should be able to have
multiple terms with the same definition, such as

<DT>bad
<DT>awful
<DD>Something that isn't good.

or even multiple terms with multiple definitions.

I don't see anything wrong with requiring that there must first
be one or more terms and then one or more definitions (making
it impossible to start with a definition, or to have only
one definition without any terms or only one term without any
definitions.

Does (DT+, DD+)+ do the trick?
-- 
E. Stephen Mack <estephen@emf.net>    http://www.emf.net/~estephen/