Re: Definition lists

E. Stephen Mack (
Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:18:33 -0700

Message-Id: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:18:33 -0700
From: "E. Stephen Mack" <>
Subject: Re: Definition lists
In-Reply-To: <l03110700b002c13a2680@[]>

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 <>
> [...] 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

<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

Does (DT+, DD+)+ do the trick?
E. Stephen Mack <>