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: Re: item for 1.3 triage list


I have the same requirement for my Publishing clients, many of whom are
creating things like textbooks and thus reflecting exactly the same
requirements Emma relates.

Indexterm allows keyword but not text or ph.

I think it should allow %ph; and %text; (%text; is allowed within <ph> but
there's no obvious reason to require the wrapping just to use <text>--but I
think we have a separate issue on allowing <text> more places, yes?).

Because %basic.ph; includes %xref;, we wouldn't want to allow %basic.ph;
within indexterm, but I think xref is the only thing from %basic.ph; that
isn't sensible within an index term:

<!ENTITY % basic.ph
  "%boolean; | 
   %cite; | 
   %keyword; | 
   %ph; | 
   %q; |
   %term; | 
   %tm; | 
   %xref; |  <===== Not good in indexterm
   %state;
  "
>

Maybe the real answer is to refactor %basic.ph to

<!ENTITY % basic.ph.noxref
  "%boolean; | 
   %cite; | 
   %keyword; | 
   %ph; | 
   %q; |
   %term; | 
   %tm; | 
   %state;
  "
>
<!ENTITY % basic.ph
  "%basic.ph.noxref; |
   %xref;
  "
>
 

Cheers,

E.

On 11/16/11 10:34 AM, "JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> wrote:

> We need to add this item to the 1.3 Triage list for index and for glossary (if
> appropriate).
>  
> DITA suggestion: Allow use of <ph> in <indexterm>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dita-users/message/24884;_ylc=X3oDMTJzY3FpM212B
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzEyNzQ0MjA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjAzMDM5MARtc2dJZAMyNDg4NAR
> zZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMzIxNDYxMDE3>
> Posted by: "Emma Burrows" emma.burrows@rpharms.com
> <mailto:emma.burrows@rpharms.com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20DITA%20suggestion%3A%20All
> ow%20use%20of%20%3Cph%3E%20in%20%3Cindexterm%3E>   emma_j_burrows
> <http://profiles.yahoo.com/emma_j_burrows>
> Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:20 am (PST)
> 
> 
> Since it’s been suggested simply mentioning it here, here goes. Most of the
> “problems‡ I’ve encountered with the DITA structures were due to
> incompatibilities with the legacy schema (partially inspired by Docbook as it
> happens ;-) and just require some kind of hack, but this one I think is a
> genuine bug that should be resolved at the source:
> 
> Background: 
> I am converting a large body of medical reference works to DITA. This includes
> chemical formulae and substance names where superscript, subscript and italics
> are significant. These terms can appear practically anywhere, and in
> particular in index entries. The printed books have mammoth indices, sometimes
> longer than the narrative content itself, and these terms are also used to
> optimise the searches on the web versions.
> 
> Current situation:
> The <sup>, <sup> and <i> defined in the Highlighting domain are all based on
> <ph>. As far as I can tell, <ph> is not allowed in <indexterm>. Consequently
> it isn’t possible to correctly mark up H2 receptor antagonist (with a
> subscript 2) in the index. I can’t think of any logical reason why this
> should be so (and if I may name-drop for a moment, Eliot Kimber agreed when we
> discussed this a while back ☺).
> 
> Desired situation:
> For <ph> to be added to the content model of <indexterm>.
> HTH ☺ 
>  
>  
> JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
> President
> Comtech Services Inc.
> 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
> Denver, CO 80215
> joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
> skype joannhackos
>  
>  
>  

-- 
Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect
"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
Main: 512.554.9368
www.reallysi.com
www.rsuitecms.com



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