[docbook] Re: Inline term definitions

[Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>]

/ Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|> I propose that we add two new inlines to DocBook, termdef and a term
|> inside it:
|>   element termdef {
|> common.idreq.attributes,
|>                     (db.all.inlines* & term?) }
|>   element term    { common.attributes,
|>                     attribute baseform { text },
|>                     db.all.inlines* }
|> I'd put termdef in the
|> technical.inlines, explicitly
|> excluded from
|> itself.
|
| I like your proposal in general. But
| what about going even further for
| DocBook NG? I mean that we can rename
| glossterm to term and term could point
| to termdef or to definition in
| glossary or glosslist. I think that
| having firstterm, glossterm and term
| as inlines can be quite confusing,
| because they are semantically very
| similar.

On further thought, I think I'd rather restructure the proposal this
way:

element termdef {
        common.idreq.attributes,
        (db.all.inlines* & glossterm)
        }

I think that would be less confusing than promoting "term" outside
of varlistentry.

I'm still fairly neutral on whether or not to lose 'firstterm'.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | I have often wondered why I [keep]
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | going...There [can] be no hope and
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | no reward. I always recognized
                                   | that bitter truth. But I am a man,
                                   | and a man is responsible for
                                   | himself.--Sam Magruder (George
                                   | Gaylord Simpson)

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature