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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook-tc message

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

Subject: RE: [docbook] RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009

[I'm not sure Mike's email made it to the lists, so I'm forwarding
it along with a response of mine.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxwell [mailto:maxwell@umiacs.umd.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 November 18 21:32
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [docbook] RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee
> Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:09:39 -0500, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> wrote:
> > ...
> >>       2821653  indexterms in footnotes
> > ...
> > First, I note that indexterm is already allowed within paras
> > within footnotes (at least in DocBook 4.x) which is where I'd
> > usually expect an indexterm to be.  The discussion during the
> > TC call seemed not to realize this, so I wonder if I'm confused
> > or the discussion was confused.  (Perhaps this is different in
> > DocBook 5.0--I didn't check.)
> > ...
> > Given that footnotes are allowed as descendants of footnote
> > but just not as immediate children, and given that I don't
> > see also allowing indexterm as an immediate child of footnote
> > as useful, I suggest there is no reason to accept this RFE.
> From the DB 5 documentation for <footnote>
> (http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/footnote.html):
>    indexterm must not occur in the descendants of footnote
> So this is exactly the opposite of what you're describing above
> for DB4: according to the DB5 documentation, <indexterm>s are
> allowed as immediate children of <footnote>, but *not* as
> children of descendents of <footnote>.  Hence the RFE.
>    Mike Maxwell

Just to be clear, I did not review--and was not talking 
about--any documentation (for DB4 or DB5) nor the DB5
schemas.  I merely checked (and tested within Arbortext)
the XML DTD-based DocBook 4.x doctype in which
(1) %footnote.mix; (the content model for footnote) 
    does not allow indexterm, but
(2) does allow para and other elements whose content models
    do allow indexterm.
In fact, I note that, in the SGML version, there are some
exclusions on footnote, but indexterm is not excluded. 

I leave it to the rest of the DocBook TC to decide exactly
what to do, but my suggestion would be:

a.  ensure the DB5 schema matches the DB4 DTD in this case
    so that indexterm is not excluded from children of
    footnote that would ordinarily allow indexterm if
    they were not within a footnote;

b.  ensure the content model for footnote does not allow
    indexterm as an immediate child of footnote (though
    I could go either way, but I see no reason to change
    the status quo here);

c.  ensure the documentation reflects the schema and puts
    no further constraints on how indexterm can be used
    within footnote.

As an aside, if the DB5 schema does not exclude footnote
within footnote (the DB4 XML DTD does not [because it
could not given what one can do in an XML DTD]), then
that semantic exclusion should be indicated in the
documentation.  (I did not look at the DB5 schema, so
this exclusion may already be covered.)


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