[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [docbook] RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee MeetingAgenda: 18 November 2009
To me, an index term is at least as likely to apply to an entire footnote as it is to an element contained within the footnote. I would favor allowing it as a child of footnote. Larry Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:34 AM To: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [docbook] RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009 [I'm not sure Mike's email made it to the lists, so I'm forwarding it along with a response of mine.] > -----Original Message----- > From: maxwell [mailto:maxwell@umiacs.umd.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, 2009 November 18 21:32 > To: Grosso, Paul > Cc: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [docbook] RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee > Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009 > > 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 Just to be clear, I did not review--and was not talking about--any documentation (for DB4 or DB5) nor the DB5 schemas. I merely checked (and tested within Arbortext) the XML DTD-based DocBook 4.x doctype in which (1) %footnote.mix; (the content model for footnote) does not allow indexterm, but (2) does allow para and other elements whose content models do allow indexterm. In fact, I note that, in the SGML version, there are some exclusions on footnote, but indexterm is not excluded. I leave it to the rest of the DocBook TC to decide exactly what to do, but my suggestion would be: a. ensure the DB5 schema matches the DB4 DTD in this case so that indexterm is not excluded from children of footnote that would ordinarily allow indexterm if they were not within a footnote; b. ensure the content model for footnote does not allow indexterm as an immediate child of footnote (though I could go either way, but I see no reason to change the status quo here); c. ensure the documentation reflects the schema and puts no further constraints on how indexterm can be used within footnote. As an aside, if the DB5 schema does not exclude footnote within footnote (the DB4 XML DTD does not [because it could not given what one can do in an XML DTD]), then that semantic exclusion should be indicated in the documentation. (I did not look at the DB5 schema, so this exclusion may already be covered.) paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]