Some of the definitions in a definition-list have clearly-defined attributions, for example ISO. It seems logical, if the goal is to produced a set of structured and searchable files, to use something like


[dt]name of term goes here[/dt]

[dd]definition of term goes here

[source]attribution goes here[/source]



[source] is clearly not the element to use here, though; nor is [author].

Any suggestions?

The glossentry structure has a bit more structure to it than a dlentry, including relationships - maybe that would give you what you're looking for?

Michael Priestley

Thanks, Michael – I've been and checked glossdef in the 1.1 specification, but didn't spot anything obvious. Would it be appropriate to use data-about, do you think?

With a glossary structure, you could add related-links after the glossdef.

That said, maybe that's too heavy-weight. Maybe the simplest approach would be a <dl> like you have, but add a second <dd> with a <cite> or <xref> in it when there's a source to refer to.

I'd tend away from data-about - the data elements are primarily for machine processing (ie, they don't have default output to human-readable formats).

Michael Priestley

Thanks, Michael - you're right about related-links, as I hadn't intended to set up real live links to the sources. A second [dd] with a [cite] sounds like an elegant compromise! Focus Areas: BPEL | DITA | ebXML | IDtrust | OpenDocument | SAML | UBL | UDDI
OASIS sites: OASIS | Cover Pages | | AMQP | CGM Open | eGov | Emergency | IDtrust | LegalXML | Open CSA | OSLC | WS-I