Richard: > Did I just over-geek the whole scenario? Yes. That's what we are here for.
> A rough example might be: "dog", "chien", "bow wow", image of a dog, etc... > which are all signifiers for the one signified - the actual dog itself. They are all signifiers (dt) for the same signified (described in a dd, it is not the signified as you can only describe the thing that's signified) <dt>Dog</dt> <dt lang="gl">Can</dt> <dt lang="fr">Chien</dt> <dd><p>Text desc</p><img><object> <blockquote> <p> </dd> Anyway IMHO this is not the case: Chien does not define Perro. Dog does not define Inu. A photograph of a dog is not the definition for that dog. The textual description, the photograph, sound file, etc. would be part of description. But, as I previously said, I'm not 100% sure that every item belonging to a definiton should go inside the same dd. Only 98% :oP sure. Consider a dictionary. <dt>green</dt> <dd> <p>Color of the leaves</p> <blockquote>Green is the color of my true love's hair</blockquote> </dd> <dd> <p>Froggy-like</p> <img src="kermit.jpg" alt="It's not that easy bein' green"> </dd> <dd> <p>Money</p> <p>Used only in slang</p> </dd> The term is clearly the dt, each entry in its own dd as they provide different descriptions, but a quote, an example of the use of that term, an image, wouldn`t go in their own dd or it would be a mess, you would lose relationship as you would put a quote at the same level of relationship as a textual/visual depiction. See, that's my point, it depends on context.In case you are tagging a multilingual dictionary on an english centered page your example would be right, whereas all the other language names in the same dd would be wrong. It depends on what you want to express/mark. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
