[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Re: Request For Clarification: Indexterm processingin auto-index generation.
Norman Walsh wrote: > DocBook: The Definitive Guide is normative with respect to the > processing expectations. The HTML stylesheets simply don't satisfy > those expectations. Issue 1. OK > > If you can think of a way to present the index in HTML that more > closely matches the expectations, I'd be happy to implement it. > > The screw case is this one: > > <section xml:id="foo"> > <title>Some section title</title> > <para>...</para> > <para><indexterm xml:id="foo.idx"><primary>Foo</primary></indexterm>...</para> > <para>...</para> > <!-- 35 more paras --> > <para>...</para> > <para><indexterm xml:id="foo2.idx"><primary>Foo</primary></indexterm>...</para> > </section> > > In the index, that's currently presented as: > > F > > Foo, _Some section title_ > > where both terms have been collapsed into one. Representing both links > with the same section title Which seems way out wrong. > I suppose they could be numbered sequentially throughout the document, > but that'd be misleading too. Though maybe less so. At least "14" and > "15" would be near each other in the text and "14" and "352" wouldn't > be. > > Anyway, linking to the right place isn't hard, it's finding > appropriate link text for the index that's hard. Suggest putting the responsibility on the author? If they choose to use <primary>Foo</primary> then that is exactly what they'll get? The 'wrongness' is then theirs to resolve? Norm, you haven't commented on the fo case? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk