Re: Inline term definitions

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|> I propose that we add two new inlines to DocBook, termdef and a term
|> inside it:
|>   element termdef { common.idreq.attributes,
|>                     (db.all.inlines* & term?) }
|>   element term    { common.attributes,
|>                     attribute baseform { text },
|>                     db.all.inlines* }
|> I'd put termdef in the technical.inlines, explicitly excluded from
|> itself.
|
| I like your proposal in general. But what about going even further for
| DocBook NG? I mean that we can rename glossterm to term and term could
| point to termdef or to definition in glossary or glosslist. I think
| that having firstterm, glossterm and term as inlines can be quite
| confusing, because they are semantically very similar.

I thought about that. That's one of the reasons I only proposed putting
term inside termdef (and not elsewhere as a general inline).
We could rename them, I suppose, I'd have to think about that a bit.

| Maybe we can also remove firstterm and add class attribute to term to
| distinguish between first and successive occurences of term.

I've often wondered about the value of firstterm.

| We should also check whether content model of new term element is
| compatible with term used inside varlistentry. In RNG we can
| distinguish them but this is not case for DTDs.

Good catch! Luckily, they're the same :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | The world is a vast temple
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | dedicated to Discord.-- Voltaire
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |

PGP signature