More Glossary Stuff

["W. Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>]

Another question: why does the spec disallow the nesting of glossary 
topics within other topic types or, to say it another way, why don't we 
define a specialization of concept called "glossary" that includes 
glossentry? That's exactly what I was expecting to find when I saw the 
heading "Glossary elements" and the phrase "Glossary topics".

While the mechanism may be intended to support more automatic generation 
of glossaries it shouldn't preclude the creation of explicitly-ordered 
and organized glossaries. For example, it might be very useful to create 
a master glossary as a single document (because, for example, all the 
terms are managed by a single person). That is, it seems reasonable to 
be able to have something like this:

<glossary class="- topic/topic concept/concept glossary/glossary"
   id="master-glossary">
   <title>Master Glossary>
   <conbody>
     <p>This is the master glossary of terms for the blah blah blah</p>
   </conbody>
   <glossary
     class="- topic/topic concept/concept glossary/glossary"
     id="mg-a">
     <title>A</title>
     <glossentry
       class="- topic/topic concept/concept glossary/glossentry">
       <glossterm>apple</glossterm>
       <glossdef><p>A tasty fruit</p></glossdef>
     </glossentry>
   </glossary>
</glossary>

I don't think there's anything in the standard that absolutely prohibits 
me from doing this myself but the language under glossentry to the 
effect that "glossentry *cannot* be contained by anything else" would 
appear to prohibit it.

I don't see any reason to do so.

Cheers,

E.
-- 
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759
(214) 954-5198

ekimber@innodata-isogen.com
www.innodata-isogen.com