[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA 1.3 FEATURE REQUEST: <gloss-sort-as>
At our previous DITA Adoption TC meeting, one of the DITA-OT developers pointed out that the new glossary markup does not address sorting the glossary entries. I would like to add a discussion of this item to a future DITA TC meeting for consideration. I don't expect this to make it into DITA 1.2, but rather have us discuss it and decide whether to add it to our 1.3 list or reject it.
From: Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Joe Gelb; email@example.com
Cc: JoAnn Hackos
Subject: RE: [dita-adoption] glossary support
I'll take the sort as issue to the TC. Thanks for pointing it out.
Many of the new elements in the glossary spec require quite a lot of specialized processing, so tools will need to support them. I'd need to remind myself on how much is normative -- I expect most if not all of the processing requirements would be non-normative, in which case tools can do what they want.
From: Joe Gelb [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 5:29 PM
Cc: 'JoAnn Hackos'; Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)
Subject: [dita-adoption] glossary support
I’m not sure if I will be able to make today’s call (or at least not the whole thing) but I wanted to give an answer to the group about the glossary 1.2 spec support in the current 1.5M10 FO plug-in.
Basically: there is nearly 0% support added in up to now. However, since all the elements are specialized from something else, it could be that there would be reasonable behavior without doing much – would need to get tested with some real content. This is aside from any specific best practice behaviors specified in the spec that would require complex processing.
Although I am fairly certain we do have code for implementing glossaries, we have not yet hit upon any customers who asked for this implementation, so we do not have anything ready for contribution on this at this point. However, we did have a customer who needed something that was not included in this spec, <gloss-sort-as>, which we did in fact implement. Perhaps someone on the dita architecture committee (or whoever created this spec) can suggest including this.
Hope this helps.