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

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

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:09:39 -0500, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
wrote:
> ...
>>       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.)
> ...
> 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.

From the DB 5 documentation for <footnote>
(http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/footnote.html):
   indexterm must not occur in the descendants of footnote
So this is exactly the opposite of what you're describing above for DB4:
according to the DB5 documentation, <indexterm>s are allowed as immediate
children of <footnote>, but *not* as children of descendents of <footnote>.
Hence the RFE.

   Mike Maxwell