Re: Definition lists

Jordan Reiter (
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:50:29 -0500

Message-Id: <l03110700b003cea9cc24@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:50:29 -0500
To: wahlen@ph-cip.Uni-Koeln.DE (Holger Wahlen),
From: Jordan Reiter <>
Subject: Re: Definition lists

At 6:48 PM -0500 07-28-1997, Holger Wahlen wrote:
>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.

Except that it seems to me that if you *are* dealing with definitions,
there's no need to complicate their meaning by adding an unordered list to
the fray.

>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.

Notice, though, that my example is alright with his restrictions.  As such,
I think some consideration should be made to conforming the DTD to these
restrictions, rather than saying "well, these restrictions fit into the
current DTD anyway."  It's equivalent to someone saying "You know, there
should be a speed limit", and someone says, "Well, we can just forbid the
use of cars at all and that'll solve it." :-)

[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[                 ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]