Hi again Martin,
Thanks so much for bringing me back to the example and definition that
led me to chose "gloss". After reading Dan O'Donnell's comment about
types, I went to double-check if "glosses" and panicked when I read
the optional types.
I had originally chosen "definition" as my tag for definitions of
terms, because it seemed to be suggested that <gloss> did not admit
Since we will be frequently dealing with both "glosses" of terms and
"glosses" of examples, it would be desirable to be able to add a type
attribute, unless I am missing an easier solution.
Again, Martin, thanks for pulling out that citation. It's one that
gives me great hope, since it so specifically linguistic!