Re: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 15December 2010

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

Not sure what access I've got so responding to all adss
It bounced from my own email.



On 16 December 2010 17:36, Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> wrote:
> DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 15 December 2010


     3107140  aconym expansion inline
 Members felt there are already mechanisms to support acronyms.
 ACTION: Norm to respond to RFE.

 He did
 "We talked about this on the call today. It seems that there are two
 existing approaches that would work. First, you could put the acronyms
 in a glossary, point to the glossary entries, and get the expansions
 from there. If you wanted a one-off entry without all the glossary
 machinery, you could use alt for this purpose.

 If neither of those approaches satisfies your use case, could you
 provide a little more detail for us?"



 I've not argued that the acronym expansion could be in the glossary.
 My complaint is that I can't expand it inline.
   I've no idea about the Chicago manual of style, but in English I
 was always told to expand an acroym inline, on first use, thereafter
 using the abbreviated form. E.g laser (light amplification by
 stimulated emission of radiation), .... laser is ....

 As with sighted people, a blind user shouldn't have to hike over to
 the glossary to get that expansion if the author wants to use good
 English practices.

 Is that sufficient Norm?


regarsd

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk