On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 12:42:09AM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 11:13:36PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 11:45:53PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > Should we add the name of the command, so current > > > > <td class="printindex-index-entry index-entry-level-1"> > > > > would become the following? > > > > <td class="printindex-index-subentry-level-1"> > > It gets more complicated with @seeentry and @seealso that have their own > element classes. The current output for @seealso does use > 'printindex-index-entry' like regular index entries, but @seentry uses > 'printindex-index-see-entry' instead. I wonder if there would be > any harm in also using 'printindex-index-entry' for @seeentry as well? > Then we would avoid multiplying element classes and rules, like > 'printindex-index-see-entry-subentry-level-1', and so on.
My idea, (and there is a TODO for that) was rather to differentiate more @seealso to have a different class from @seeentry and regular index entries. One option would be to have additional classes for seeentry/seealso in addition to the same classes as for regular indes entries. This would not be ideal either, as it would mean that if both 'printindex-index-entry' and 'printindex-index-see-entry' have a rule set, only one would be taken. There is probably no perfect solution here, as we want both @seeentry/@seealso to be formatted like other index entries and, possibly, differently. -- Pat
