Richard: > Hi Micky, > > Not sure I follow.. > The <dt> is the signified (the object itself) and the signifiers (<dd>s) > don't so much as 'define' it in the strict sense, but act as a > representation of the concept.
Nope, it is the other way round, the dt is the signifier, the signified is the dog itself, not even the description, so Chien, Can, Inu are signifiers, as well as Bitch or Fido. That's one of the reasons this analogy does not apply too well. The title of a book would be a signifier of the book itself, you would then try to describe the book trough a description. Title-> dt, description->dd, signified->the real book. > <dt>Green</dt> > <dd>Color of the leaves</dd> > <dd>Example: <blockquote cite="http://www.poetry.com/envy.html";>Green is the > color of my true love's hair</blockquote></dd> The quote is related to the previous dd, not directly to the dt, otherwise it would be on the same level as the previous, AND following dds. And the following ones do not neccessarily have to go along with the example/quote/image. Consider the definiton of dog as an animal, or a streetgang person, putting the images depicting the animal and the gangster at the same level would be more than confusing, and so not semantic. The problem is of course more obvious when you have different definitions for a single term, how dou you relate them? If almost every single part of the description of a term gets its own dd, how can we tell apart which items are grouped and belong to one of the different definitions? BTW your css solution is great, I came up with the same for a newspaper some time ago, but it had/has one drawback, I had to ask the editors to restrict the dt to one line. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
