Since I have been a lurker on this list for some time and this is my first
post, hello everyone.
I am currently writing a paper, using the 4.2 XML DTD, in English, on a
subject "invented" by German-speaking Europeans, which is intended to be read
by both English- and German-speakers. So in my glossary, aside from the
English glossary terms and English glossdefs, I would also like to include
German translations of the terms used. I am unsure whether there's a more
elegant alternative to what I'm doing:
<glossentry>
<glossterm>Net present value</glossterm>
<acronym>NPV</acronym>
<glossdef>
<para>(German: <foreignphrase
lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase>)
<!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
</para>
</glossdef>
</glossentry>
Ugly, right? If one had to use those parentheses, it would be nicer to include
them in the glossterm. Yet if I did that, I would have to use:
<glossterm>Net present value (German: <foreignphrase
lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase></glossterm>
anywhere in the text where I wanted a glossary reference (so the docbook-xsl
stylesheets would be able to produce links in the text). So that won't work,
notwithstanding the fact that it would still be ugly markup anyway.
Another alternative is this:
<glossentry id="ge_npv">
<glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm>
<acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
<glossdef>
<para>
<!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
</para>
</glossdef>
</glossentry>
<glossentry>
<glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm>
<glosssee otherterm="ge_npv"/>
</glossentry>
.. which I also find ugly, as it doesn't really reflect that "net present
value" and "Kapitalwert" are really the same thing.
What would help is something along these lines:
<glossentry>
<glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm>
<glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm>
<acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
<glossdef>
<para>
<!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
</para>
</glossdef>
</glossentry>
Yet a glossentry only allows one child glossterm (although it does allow
multiple glossdefs, so multi-language definitions of one single-language
glossary term are OK). What's the reasoning behind this; what would be a good
way to resolve the issue described using the present DTD? Or would this
warrant an RFE?
Cheers,
-- Florian
