[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. On further thought, I think I'd rather restructure the proposal this way: element termdef { common.idreq.attributes, (db.all.inlines* & glossterm) } I think that would be less confusing than promoting "term" outside of varlistentry. I'm still fairly neutral on whether or not to lose 'firstterm'. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | I have often wondered why I [keep] http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | going...There [can] be no hope and Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | no reward. I always recognized | that bitter truth. But I am a man, | and a man is responsible for | himself.--Sam Magruder (George | Gaylord Simpson)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]