Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Issues with processing expectations of the proposedannotation element

[Michael Smith <smith at xml-doc dot org>]

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

> / Yann Dirson <ydirson@fr.alcove.com> was heard to say:
> | How do people feel <annotation> would relate to <footnote> and <remark> ?
> 
> You might sell me on deprecating remark in favor of a class of
> annotation, but I think footnote should stay. It already exists, it
> has well understood semantics, and it has a related footnoteref
> element.

I wouldn't be in favor of deprecating footnote either; the name is
very clear-- I think everybody understands exactly what it's for, and
despite any legacy connotations, realizes it can be used for HTML
content as well, where numbered footnote links might take to you
"footnote" annotations at the bottom of the same HTML page where where
they appear -- for example, the way they're handled here:

  http://www.logopoeia.com/killoyle/chapter1.html

...or to a separate "footnotes" page containing the annotations -- for
example, the way they're handled here:

  http://xml.oreilly.com/news/dontlearn_footnotes.html

> Remark, on the other hand, is really a sort of kind of annotation and
> someone recently asked why it can't contain paras and such.

Yeah, it seems like Remark ought to have a content model more like the
Footnote content model (though as I said, if we added an Annotation
element, I don't think it'd mean we should necessarily deprecate Remark).

  --Mike