[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Issues with processing expectations of the proposedannotation element
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 05:20:30PM -0500, Paul Grosso wrote: > >| 8. Discuss Annotations {15 min} > > > > Annotations would be associated with the element that contains them. > > Mike points out that this would allow the content of an element that contained > > an annotation to be presented with a special color or other distinctive > > presentation. > > > > Mike: if we want to add an element for associating expanded/spelled-out versions > > of acronyms and abbreviations, we might want to provide a broader solution so > > that we could support anything someone wanted to annotate. > > > > Footnote has legacy connotations. > > > > ACTION: Paul to send email describing some unresolved processing expectation > > issues. How do people feel <annotation> would relate to <footnote> and <remark> ? It seems to me that <remark> would be just a special case of <annotation> (class="(Editorial|ProofReader)", and maybe a couple more), and that <footnote> could be merged into <annotation> as well, but I'd rather not use "footnote" as a class value, as it has IMHO too much layout-oriented connotation. Maybe footnotes could be made the default processing for <annotation>, and some annotation classes (eg. editorial comments) would be possible to render as marginalia. -- Yann Dirson <Yann.Dirson@fr.alcove.com> http://www.alcove.com/ Technical support manager Responsable de l'assistance technique Senior Free-Software Consultant Consultant senior en Logiciels Libres Debian developer (dirson@debian.org) Développeur Debian
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC