On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:09:39 -0500, "Grosso, Paul" <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> 2821653 indexterms in footnotes > ... > First, I note that indexterm is already allowed within paras > within footnotes (at least in DocBook 4.x) which is where I'd > usually expect an indexterm to be. The discussion during the > TC call seemed not to realize this, so I wonder if I'm confused > or the discussion was confused. (Perhaps this is different in > DocBook 5.0--I didn't check.) > ... > Given that footnotes are allowed as descendants of footnote > but just not as immediate children, and given that I don't > see also allowing indexterm as an immediate child of footnote > as useful, I suggest there is no reason to accept this RFE.
>From the DB 5 documentation for <footnote> (http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/footnote.html): indexterm must not occur in the descendants of footnote So this is exactly the opposite of what you're describing above for DB4: according to the DB5 documentation, <indexterm>s are allowed as immediate children of <footnote>, but *not* as children of descendents of <footnote>. Hence the RFE. Mike Maxwell --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
