RE: dl, dd, dt in XHTML 2.0

Hi Marcos,

first and in principle, I do (or did) not agree because 'definition'
inherently symbolizes a single (!) and precise annotation for an object or anything
else. See <>: 'A definition is a
statement or other presentation that indicates what a word or other expression
refers to or otherwise means'.

Second, assuming a wider comprehension, you should use either a extended
version of the current definition list (like I suggested in the second email),
or (and now I agree) redefine the existing tag(s).

One remark: Your example is IMHO not convenient, because the second 'cat
definition' here complies to an acronym.

Best regards,

> Hey Jens,
> I agree that domain specific semantics for a term might call for only
> one definition (as is the case with an ontology like Dublin Core Terms
> or a in a General Definition part of a W3C spec doc). However, any
> dictionary that I've ever looked at always contains one or more
> definitions for a term. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't have
> multiple definitions for a term. For instance, the word 'Cat' can be a
> furry four legged creature, or an abbreviation for the type of boat
> 'catamaran'.
> In XHTML 2.0, how I structure my terms and definitions is *open* (or
> ambiguous) in the RelaxNG implementation:
>   <define name="dl">
>       <element name="dl">
>         <ref name="dl.attlist"/>
>         <oneOrMore>
>           <choice>
>         <ref name="dt"/>
>         <ref name="dd"/>
>           </choice>
>         </oneOrMore>
>       </element>
>     </define>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the above definition, I can
> have one or more dt or dl in any order and it should still be valid. I
> would be nice to hear why you don't agree with my suggestion of
> structuring terms and definitions through encapsulation. 
> Thanks again for the feedback, 
> Marcos 

<snip />

Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91
Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5

eMail <>
Internet <>

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2003 05:09:52 UTC