Re: DOCBOOK: Issues with processing expectations of the proposedannotation element

[Yann Dirson <ydirson@fr.alcove.com>]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 05:20:30PM -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
> >| 8. Discuss Annotations {15 min}
> >
> >     Annotations would be associated with the element that contains them.
> >     Mike points out that this would allow the content of an element that contained
> >     an annotation to be presented with a special color or other distinctive
> >     presentation.
> >
> >     Mike: if we want to add an element for associating expanded/spelled-out versions
> >     of acronyms and abbreviations, we might want to provide a broader solution so
> >     that we could support anything someone wanted to annotate.
> >
> >     Footnote has legacy connotations.
> >
> >     ACTION: Paul to send email describing some unresolved processing expectation
> >     issues.

How do people feel <annotation> would relate to <footnote> and <remark> ?

It seems to me that <remark> would be just a special case of
<annotation> (class="(Editorial|ProofReader)", and maybe a couple
more), and that <footnote> could be merged into <annotation> as well,
but I'd rather not use "footnote" as a class value, as it has IMHO too
much layout-oriented connotation.  Maybe footnotes could be made the
default processing for <annotation>, and some annotation classes
(eg. editorial comments) would be possible to render as marginalia.

-- 
Yann Dirson <Yann.Dirson@fr.alcove.com>                 http://www.alcove.com/
Technical support manager                Responsable de l'assistance technique
Senior Free-Software Consultant          Consultant senior en Logiciels Libres
Debian developer (dirson@debian.org)                        Développeur Debian