Re: Definition lists

Holger Wahlen (wahlen@ph-cip.Uni-Koeln.DE)
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:48:30 +0200

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:48:30 +0200
Message-Id: <>
From: wahlen@ph-cip.Uni-Koeln.DE (Holger Wahlen)
Subject: Re: Definition lists

On Monday, 28 Jul 1997, 16:41:16 -0500, Jordan Reiter
<> wrote:

| 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.

It does mean that DDs can't follow each other immediately,
yes, but it's nevertheless possible to give several
definitions for the same term. You just have to let the word
"several" there let the "list" bell ring in your head, and
your example turns into:

<LI CLASS="formal">Something that isn't good.
<LI CLASS="slang">Something that is good.

Any examples where this wouldn't be appropriate? Otherwise
I'd still prefer the mentioned (DT+, DD)+.

Or maybe even (DT, DD)+, strictly allowing only sequences
DT-DD-DT-DD and so on. With the present requirements, though,
the method above can't be used to have multiple terms for one
definition as well, because lists are allowed only in DD, not
in DT - but perhaps that should be changed then too?

Regardless of the exact implementation, I agree that there
should be the restrictions listed by E. Stephen Mack

| making it impossible to start with a definition, or to have 
| only one definition without any terms or only one term 
| without any definitions.

... all of which is allowed by the current DL definition. <s>
Does anybody really want to keep some of this?

____  |__|   / Holger   //  ____
      |  |/|/  Wahlen  //