On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Lou Burnard
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think Stuart is complaining about the definition of <def> which certainly
> suggests that if it just contains a graphic or a link then it's wrong. But I
> think his complaint is based on a category error. After all, a graphic is
> not a definition, useful in understanding something though it might be, any
> more than a pointer to some other dictionary entry is a replacement for a
> definition, useful in understanding it though it may well be.
You may be right about the current examples, but consider a graphic of
a dog with all the defining characteristics of the species marked out.
> As Sebastian
> notes, the graphic and the link could both be assimilated into the existing
I'd be interested to see how you suggest marking that up in a sane way.
Note that <cit/> (which I would have used to contain a textual
example) is also required to contain "at least one occurrence of the
word form" so can't be used to mark up purely graphical example.
> I am not sure how to understand multiple <def>s within a single <sense>: my
> guess is that this would be appropriate where multiple previously
> independent sources were being combined into a single resource. Is that the
> case here?
Yes, this is the case here.