[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Multiple-language glossterms
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 06:50:27AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > / "Florian G. Haas" <f.g.haas@gmx.net> was heard to say: > | <glossterm>Net present value (German: <foreignphrase > | lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase></glossterm> > | > | anywhere in the text where I wanted a glossary reference (so the docbook-xsl > | stylesheets would be able to produce links in the text). > > Or make the links explicit: > > <glossterm linkend="gloss-npv">Net present value ...</glossterm> > > .. > > <glossentry id="gloss-npv">... > > | Another alternative is this: > | > | <glossentry id="ge_npv"> > | <glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm> > | <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym> > | <glossdef> > | <para> > | <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. --> > | </para> > | </glossdef> > | </glossentry> > | <glossentry> > | <glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm> > | <glosssee otherterm="ge_npv"/> > | </glossentry> > | > | .. which I also find ugly, as it doesn't really reflect that "net present > | value" and "Kapitalwert" are really the same thing. > > Yeah. Well, the glosssee makes it pretty clear, but it's going to be tedious > for users of the glossary. > > | What would help is something along these lines: > | > | <glossentry> > | <glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm> > | <glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm> > | <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym> > | <glossdef> > | <para> > | <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. --> > | </para> > | </glossdef> > | </glossentry> > > How about: > > <glossentry> > <glossterm>Net present value (German: <foreignphrase > lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase></glossterm> > <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym> > <glossdef> > <para> > <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. --> > </para> > </glossdef> > </glossentry> > > | Yet a glossentry only allows one child glossterm (although it does allow > | multiple glossdefs, so multi-language definitions of one single-language > | glossary term are OK). What's the reasoning behind this; what would be a good > | way to resolve the issue described using the present DTD? Or would this > | warrant an RFE? > > I no longer recall why multiple glossdefs are allowed. Probably so > that they could be written for different audiences or security levels > or something. Most likely because a term can have more than one distict definition. "image" as graphics file, "image" as CD-ROM snapshot. Bob Stayton 400 Encinal Street Publications Architect Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Technical Publications voice: (831) 427-7796 The SCO Group fax: (831) 429-1887 email: bobs@sco.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]