RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009

["Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Stayton [mailto:bobs@sagehill.net]
> Sent: Monday, 2009 November 16 11:44
> To: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18
> November 2009
> 
> DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009
> =============================================================


>       2821653  indexterms in footnotes


First, I note that indexterm is already allowed within paras
within footnotes (at least in DocBook 4.x) which is where I'd 
usually expect an indexterm to be.  The discussion during the
TC call seemed not to realize this, so I wonder if I'm confused
or the discussion was confused.  (Perhaps this is different in
DocBook 5.0--I didn't check.)

I'm not sure how an indexterm as a child of footnote would be 
usefully different from putting the indexterm within the para 
(or other child of footnote, since footnote requires some child) 
that is within the footnote.

Given that footnotes are allowed as descendants of footnote
but just not as immediate children, and given that I don't 
see also allowing indexterm as an immediate child of footnote
as useful, I suggest there is no reason to accept this RFE.

On the other hand, the Arbortext composition products have no
problem handling either indexterms as a children of footnote
or as children of para within footnotes.

paul