Re: [docbook] indexterm in footnote

[maxwell <maxwell@umiacs.umd.edu>]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:37:04 -0700, "Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>
wrote:
> I believe the statement in the documentation is saying that footnotes
> should not contain indexterms at all.  I cannot tell you why, though.

I guess that's a possible interpretation.  But the documentation for
'footnote' says that 'indexterm' is a possible child of footnote, and the
documentation for 'indexterm' says that 'footnote' is a possible parent of
'indexterm'.  So my interpretation was that an indexterm could not appear
inside a para which in turn appeared inside a footnote.  But like you, I'm
not sure why.

Another constraint is that 'footnote must not occur in the descendants of
footnote'.  That makes perfect sense; you wouldn't want a footnote inside a
para inside a footnote, any more than you would want a 'footnote' as an
immediate parent or child of 'footnote'.  But I'm not sure why you wouldn't
want an indexterm there.

I just now noticed that 'equation' is in the same boat as 'indexterm':
'equation' is listed as a possible child of 'footnote', and vice versa. 
But the documentation for 'footnote' says "equation must not occur in the
descendants of footnote."  But 'equation' can occur inside a 'para'.  Maybe
it's forbidden in the descendants of footnotes because 'equation's are
expected to be "Formatted as a displayed block", rather than as inlines? 
(Whereas 'mathphrase' is intended for inline formatting, and is not
forbidden among the descendants of footnote.)

   Mike Maxwell