[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 16 July 2008
/ "Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> was heard to say: | b. Norm to review Committee Spec comments so far. We only received one official comment, AFIACT, Michiel Kamermans comment about internationalization: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-comment/200805/msg00000.html The minutes are not entirely clear, but I believe the TC position is that the W3C ITS WG has solved this problem and we will distributed their I18N'd version of the DocBook schema. | c. Norm to resond to poster of Ruby request regarding W3C ITS. Done. | h. Norm to review his understanding of 1912756 Add @scope to index. Looking at the values of scope on indexterm, in response to a comment or message I can no longer find, I convinced myself that it would be useful for an index to specify it's associated scope. I'm no longer convinced. First, this only comes into play when a set of box is being indexed and the author wants one book to have a local index that is not a subset of the global index. By marking some indexterms as "local" they can be excluded from the set index. So a setindex, collects up "all" and "global" terms. The index in the back of each individual volume just collects the local terms. I think the combination of index and setindex is entirely sufficient. I withdraw this RFE. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is seldom that any liberty is http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | lost all at once.--David Hume Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]