As we noted last week:

----------
<bibl> elements need to be applied in many different locations, especially inside <def> and <form>, to make it absolutely clear what the source for each of them is. Right now, a <bibl> tends to appear in a <def>, and that actually means that it applies not only to the <def>'s parent <sense> element, but also to the preceding sibling <form> element. Since this is not reliably the case, though, we need to be explicit about it.
----------

I went through the s-rtr file and made the placement of bibl tags more explicit. For simple entries with one form and one sense it looks like:

<form>
<pron>
<seg type="phonemic">stíks</seg>
</pron>
<bibl>Y37.45</bibl>
<hyph><m sameAs="stiks">stíks</m></hyph>
</form>
<sense>
<def>
<seg>big male mountain <gloss>goat</gloss></seg>
<bibl>Y37.45</bibl>
</def>
</sense>

The most complex combination I've found so far is this kind - one form with two defs.

<form>
<pron>
<seg type="phonemic">ṣạpḷị́ḷ </seg>
<seg type="narrow">sàpᵊlél</seg>
</pron>
<bibl>G7.32; Y6.151, 305; Y16.189; Y21.11</bibl>
<bibl>W9.100</bibl>
</form>
<sense>
<def>
<seg><gloss>flour</gloss></seg>
<bibl>G7.32; Y6.151, 305; Y16.189; Y21.11</bibl>
</def>
<def>
<seg><gloss>bread</gloss></seg>
<bibl>W9.100</bibl>
</def>
</sense>

So the markup shows that the form was given by two speakers (well, the first bibl is actually at least two speakers), but each had a different definition for it.

If we didn't have the bibls in the form here, the formula Martin mentioned would actually still work, I think:

"A <bibl> appears in a <def>, and that actually means that it applies not only to the <def>'s parent <sense> element, but also to the preceding sibling <form> element."

That should actually cover all possible variations:

-different sources are all listed in the same bibl
-different definitions are handled as above
-different forms of the same word get different <form>s and <sense>s anyway.

So can I get away with not putting bibls in the form after all?