On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:37:04 -0700, "Bob Stayton" <b...@sagehill.net> wrote: > I believe the statement in the documentation is saying that footnotes > should not contain indexterms at all. I cannot tell you why, though.
I guess that's a possible interpretation. But the documentation for 'footnote' says that 'indexterm' is a possible child of footnote, and the documentation for 'indexterm' says that 'footnote' is a possible parent of 'indexterm'. So my interpretation was that an indexterm could not appear inside a para which in turn appeared inside a footnote. But like you, I'm not sure why. Another constraint is that 'footnote must not occur in the descendants of footnote'. That makes perfect sense; you wouldn't want a footnote inside a para inside a footnote, any more than you would want a 'footnote' as an immediate parent or child of 'footnote'. But I'm not sure why you wouldn't want an indexterm there. I just now noticed that 'equation' is in the same boat as 'indexterm': 'equation' is listed as a possible child of 'footnote', and vice versa. But the documentation for 'footnote' says "equation must not occur in the descendants of footnote." But 'equation' can occur inside a 'para'. Maybe it's forbidden in the descendants of footnotes because 'equation's are expected to be "Formatted as a displayed block", rather than as inlines? (Whereas 'mathphrase' is intended for inline formatting, and is not forbidden among the descendants of footnote.) Mike Maxwell --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
