Re: [docbook] Inline term definitions

[Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>]

Norman Walsh wrote:

> I propose that we add two new inlines to DocBook, termdef and a term
> inside it:
> 
>   element termdef { common.idreq.attributes,
>                     (db.all.inlines* & term?) }
>   element term    { common.attributes,
>                     attribute baseform { text },
>                     db.all.inlines* }
> 
> I'd put termdef in the technical.inlines, explicitly excluded from
> itself.

I like your proposal in general. But what about going even further for 
DocBook NG? I mean that we can rename glossterm to term and term could 
point to termdef or to definition in glossary or glosslist. I think that 
having firstterm, glossterm and term as inlines can be quite confusing, 
because they are semantically very similar.

Maybe we can also remove firstterm and add class attribute to term to 
distinguish between first and successive occurences of term.

We should also check whether content model of new term element is 
compatible with term used inside varlistentry. In RNG we can distinguish 
them but this is not case for DTDs.

				Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jirka Kosek     e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz     http://www.kosek.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
   Profesionální školení a poradenství v oblasti technologií XML.
      Podívejte se na náš nově spuštěný web http://DocBook.cz
        Podrobný přehled školení http://xmlguru.cz/skoleni/
------------------------------------------------------------------

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature