OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: More Glossary Stuff

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

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.


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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]