[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Inline term definitions
/ Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> was heard to say: | 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. I thought about that. That's one of the reasons I only proposed putting term inside termdef (and not elsewhere as a general inline). We could rename them, I suppose, I'd have to think about that a bit. | Maybe we can also remove firstterm and add class attribute to term to | distinguish between first and successive occurences of term. I've often wondered about the value of firstterm. | 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. Good catch! Luckily, they're the same :-) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The world is a vast temple http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | dedicated to Discord.-- Voltaire Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]