On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:31:07PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote: > > I've been working on this, and with my current code I have, with the > following input: > > @table @asis > @item AAA > @itemx BBB > @vindex index1 > @vindex index2 > @vindex index3 > Hello > > @end table > > the following output: > > <dl class="table"> > <dt id='index-index1'><span>AAA<br>BBB<a class="index-entry-id" > id="index-index2"></a> > <a class="index-entry-id" id="index-index3"></a> > <a class="copiable-link" href='#index-index1'> ¶</a></span></dt> > <dd><p>Hello > </p> > </dd> > </dl>
> I think this works well, apart from the treatment of @itemx, which is no > longer its own <dt> element, which is questionable. There may be > better ways than simply separating the @item and @itemx output with <br>. > I couldn't easily find documentation of the HTML <dl> that said it was > okay to have two <dt> elements following each other. It is ok to have two <dt> elements following each other as Arsen reported too. Using <br> is not right, as the semantic meaning of @itemx is lost. The output should better be along (need to check whether the copiable anchor is rendered correctly): <dl class="table"> <dt id='index-index1'><span>AAA<a class="copiable-link" href='#index-index1'> ¶</a></span> <a class="index-entry-id" id="index-index2"></a> <a class="index-entry-id" id="index-index3"></a></dt> <dt>BBB</dt> <dd><p>Hello </p> </dd> </dl> As I said before I do not think that it is right to merge the first index entry with the @item, but that's a separate issue. -- Pat
