> Rowland, those examples are great.

Thanks, I may not contribute a great deal in volume, but I try to make up
for it in quality.

> I hadn't gone as far as thinking about it
> in conjunction with xml:lang. I think this combined with Ernest 'di'
> (definition item) solution would make for a nice improvement to definition
> lists.

'di' would be consistent, both with dd/dt/dl and also to draw parallels with
<li>

The current guidelines might suggest that 'di' is a little too abbreviated,
but I believe that the consistency is more important in this case (after
all, a 'di' is always going to appear in a 'dl' and always contain one or
more of 'dt' and 'dd')

The other example I considered adding was a simple translation dictionary:
<dl>
<di>
<dt xml:lang="fr">Salut!</dt>
<dt>Hi!</dt>
<dd>Informal, friendly salutation</dd>
</di>
<di>
<dt xml:lang="fr">Bonjour</dt>
<dt>Hello</dt>
<dd>Formal salutation</dd>
</di>
</dl>


> Personally, I prefer Ernest <di> ... </di> solution: I think it's easier
to
> use, looks semantically and structurally sound, and inline with the way
> other lists are constructed.

I prefer the encapsulation methodology for exactly the reasons you state