This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: Question about glossaries
- From: jaccoud at petrobras dot com dot br
- To: DocBook <docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 14:20:03 -0300
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Question about glossaries
I must disagree. I use to render acronyms in boldface, not italics, which I
use for foreign words (mostly English).
I think Norm is right in not providing any default in this case.
=============================================
Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral
Petrobrás (http://www.petrobras.com.br)
mailto:jaccoud@petrobras.com.br
voice: +55 21 2534-3485
fax: +55 21 2534-1809
=============================================
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary
and those who don't.
Dave Pawson
<dpawson@nildram. Para: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Bob Stayton
co.uk> <bobs@caldera.com>
cc: Giuseppe Greco <giuseppe.greco@bluewin.ch>, DocBook
04/10/2002 13:46 <docbook@lists.oasis-open.org>
Assunto: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Question about glossaries
At 11:55 04/10/2002, Norman Walsh wrote:
>|> Why the content of the <acronym> elements are not rendered
>|> when generating a glossary document?
>
>Because I have no idea how best to render them in the general case.
>But I'm open to suggestions.
<em>content</em>
As a suggestion, html.
Equivalent fo perhaps? italics, same font.
I.e. nominal emphasis, inline.
regards DaveP