> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:38:51 +0000 > "Rowland, Larry" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Actually, if you read the entire message, I was not suggesting that > > the rendered document have the content in a different location, I was > > suggesting that there was already markup available to represent the > > binding of the expansion to the acronym or abbreviation. I am well > > aware that the rendered content has to have the expansion information > > attached to the element itself. > > > > I still feel that centrally locating the association is preferable in > > a modern document that is potentially delivered via the Web with > > entry points that may be based on search results or other > > non-narrative paths through a document. Centrally locating the > > associated expansion reduces redundant coding. > > > But this isn't a glossary entry Larry? It's semantically wrong IMHO. > DaveP
Really? You come across "<glossterm><acronym>TLA</acronym></glossterm>" in a document and don't know what "TLA" means...so you look to the glossary and find <glossentry><glossterm><acronym>TLA</acronym></glossterm><glosssee>Three Letter Acronym</glosssee></glossentry> (and then to a separate entry for "Three Letter Acronym" which defines it). What could be more semantically pure than that? Larry is just suggesting that the OP do some stylesheet customization to leverage the existing DocBook markup and meet usability needs. There's probably room for enhancements to the schema (an otherterm attribute on acronym and abbrev?), but there's something to work with now including a nifty feature for maintaining a centralized glossary. David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
