Fair enough.
Our intention wasn't for diagram legends to define a UML dictionary, but for describing why you have made custom style choices for different types of connectors.
To define a UML dictionary you would also need to include the keywords associated with the connector. Then of course there are the elements, and that would quickly get even more complicated, especially if you wanted to define a dictionary for BPMN or similar.
Extending what Simon says, if you are trying to describe to the user how to interpret the symbology of the diagram, you are much better off creating such as a (in my view) series of diagrams which can be linked to a hyperlink on each diagram requiring the explanatory information.
Paolo
The problem as usual is in the terms... (Helsinki Principle)
The term
Legend has (among others) the meaning: a table on a map, chart, or the like, listing and explaining the symbols used.
Which can be contrasted to one of the definitions of
Key: a systematic explanation of abbreviations, symbols, etc., used in a dictionary, map, etc.
In both cases for a modelling diagram that would imply a summary of the vertices and arcs (and the various adornments applicable).
But as Simon says, that wasn't the intention of the (current) EA Legend. As he says, it's really to allow you to indicate the stylistic differences which are important in communicating the meaning (or important information) of that particular diagram.
Perhaps qualifying the term
Legend in this case would help. Also, what might help is allowing the Legend object to have an attached diagram (the ubiquitous linked diagram) so that double clicking the legend takes you to the more explanatory diagrams I mentioned above.
