> On July 13 1995 17:41 at 17:41, Chris Tilbury wrote
> [snip]
> > ... (do not the natures and
> > semantics, if not syntax, of a definition list item rule out
> > further definition lists within itself?) ...
> My question is, should a cascaded <DL> not be defined - at least for
> a second level? For example, if you have a term that is defined as a
> union of two other terms, it could make sense to provide a summary
> definition of the two subitems in a second-level definition list.
> Of course, this example assumes that the author wishes to maintain
> hierarchical groupings of the terms and not simply link to other
> terms at the same level.