DOCBOOK: Re: Multiple-language glossterms

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ "Florian G. Haas" <f.g.haas@gmx.net> was heard to say:
| <glossterm>Net present value (German: <foreignphrase         
| lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase></glossterm>
|
| anywhere in the text where I wanted a glossary reference (so the docbook-xsl 
| stylesheets would be able to produce links in the text).

Or make the links explicit:

 <glossterm linkend="gloss-npv">Net present value ...</glossterm>

...

 <glossentry id="gloss-npv">...

| Another alternative is this:
|
|   <glossentry id="ge_npv">
|     <glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm>
|     <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
|     <glossdef>
|       <para>
|           <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
|       </para>
|     </glossdef>
|   </glossentry>
|   <glossentry>
|     <glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm>
|     <glosssee otherterm="ge_npv"/>
|   </glossentry>
|
| .. which I also find ugly, as it doesn't really reflect that "net present 
| value" and "Kapitalwert" are really the same thing. 

Yeah. Well, the glosssee makes it pretty clear, but it's going to be tedious
for users of the glossary.

| What would help is something along these lines:
|
|   <glossentry>
|     <glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm>
|     <glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm>
|     <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
|     <glossdef>
|       <para>
|           <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
|       </para>
|     </glossdef>
|   </glossentry>

How about:

   <glossentry>
     <glossterm>Net present value (German: <foreignphrase
      lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase></glossterm>
     <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
     <glossdef>
       <para>
           <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
       </para>
     </glossdef>
   </glossentry>

| Yet a glossentry only allows one child glossterm (although it does allow 
| multiple glossdefs, so multi-language definitions of one single-language 
| glossary term are OK). What's the reasoning behind this; what would be a good 
| way to resolve the issue described using the present DTD? Or would this 
| warrant an RFE?

I no longer recall why multiple glossdefs are allowed. Probably so
that they could be written for different audiences or security levels
or something.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | All our foes are mortal.--Valéry
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | 
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE+dbaDOyltUcwYWjsRAsftAJ9aJ/cG8l6t7o9wSpIqV3DxByULhgCfSx+3
sKnhq1f6rgCwzslWGg4LcVY=
=EdQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----