Thank you for taking the time to report this. No, we don't follow *any* discussion related to *any* standard. The reason for that is: lack of time. We are a small company and all our software engineers are extremely busy writing code, tests and documentation.
This being said, we don't know what to do: * Patch the DocBook 5 schematron bundled with XXE? * OR Wait until a new version of the DocBook 5 schematron is released by the DocBook technical committee? Note that to our knowledge, the DocBook 5 schematron is as normative as the DocBook 5 RELAX NG grammar. This means that, in principle, we must not modify it. maxwell wrote: > This doesn't, IMO, need to appear in the XXE mailing list--it's just the > only email address I have for you. And you may already track this DocBook > mailing list, in which case you already know this. But just in case... > > The effect of the email below (see Norm Walsh's 2010-01-20 email about > half way down) is that it's OK for <indexterm>s to appear inside > <footnoote>s (including inside <para>s inside footnotes). These are > currently flagged by XXE as warnings; I believe this is done by Schematron > code, since (AFAIK) they can't be found by typical schema validation tools. > And of course they no longer need to be flagged! > > (This may imply a change to the XSL-FO code, but I believe Bob Stayton > already looked into that, and it may be that the FO code already does the > right thing.) > > Mike Maxwell > CASL/ U MD > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [ docbook-RFEs-2821653 ] indexterms in footnotes > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:27:56 +0000 > From: "SourceForge.net" <noreply at sourceforge.net> > To: noreply at sourceforge.net > > RFEs item #2821653, was opened at 2009-07-15 00:20 > Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by nwalsh > You can respond by visiting: > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=384107&aid=2821653&group_id=21935 > > Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment > thread, > including the initial issue submission, for this request, > not just the latest update. > Category: DocBook > Group: v5.0 > Status: Open >> Resolution: Accepted > Priority: 5 > Private: No > Submitted By: Mike Maxwell (mcswell) > Assigned to: Norman Walsh (nwalsh) > Summary: indexterms in footnotes > > Initial Comment: > (I posted this to the docbook mailing list, and Jirka Kosek suggested I > submit an RFE.) > > The documentation for DB 5 (I believe this goes back to 4.4) appears to be > inconsistent, or at least misleading, wrt the appearance of indexterms > inside footnotes. > > According to the DocBook 5 spec, indexterms can appear in footnotes (See > http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/indexterm.singular.html "indexterm > (db.indexterm.singular)"; I'm not worried about the startofrange/endofrange > kind of indexterm.) Specifically, the indexterm spec says that footnote is > one of the > possible parents of indexterm, and the footnote page confirms that > indexterm can be a child of footnote. > > However, the spec also says (over in the page about footnotes, > http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/footnote.html, under "Additional > constraints") that "indexterm must not occur in the descendants of > footnote." Taking these two things together, I would understand the > intention to be that the structure > <footnote> > <para> > ...<indexterm.../> > </para> > </footnote> > is forbidden. But that raises the question of where in footnotes > indexterms *can* appear; between the footnote and the para inside the > footnote? > > I've asked this question (where can indexterms appear in footnotes) on > several forums. The only response I've gotten is that the "Additional > constraints" forbid the appearance of indexterms *anywhere* inside > footnotes. Indeed, XMLmind gives exactly this result: no matter where you > try to put an indexterm inside a footnote, you get an error (from their > Schematron checker, not from their RelaxNG grammar). But if indexterms > *are* forbidden anywhere inside footnotes, then why are indexterms listed > in the spec as a possible child of footnote (and footnotes as possible > parents of indexterms)? Why not just not list them as possible > parent/child? > > My own interpretation is that indexterms are supposed to be allowed as > immediate children of footnotes, i.e. in a sister relationship with para, > but not inside the para(s). But I have no idea why there should be such a > restriction; what's wrong with having an indexterm inside a para inside a > footnote? > > Summary: I believe that either indexterms should be allowed anywhere > inside footnotes (including in the descendants of footnotes), or else they > should be allowed nowhere under footnotes. If this is done, then the > "Additional constraint" will be unnecessary for indexterms. > > (I am agnostic about whether the "Additional constraints" should be used > for the other elements that are currently disallowed under the descendants > of footnotes, or whether those should be replaced by simply disallowing > them under footnotes. Perhaps there is some reason for allowing them but > having the constraints, although the constraints are then subject to the > same potential misinterpretation. The reason for these constraints should > at least be explained and/or exemplified.) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Comment By: Norman Walsh (nwalsh) > Date: 2010-01-20 13:27 > > Message: > Accepted. This was, in retrospect, never meant to have been excluded. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Comment By: Mike Maxwell (mcswell) > Date: 2009-07-15 19:52 > > Message: > About Norman Walsh's comment: That's what I figured the reasoning was for > the constraints on appearance in descendants. But if indexterms (etc.) > are > not supposed to appear *in* footnotes, including not as immediate > children, > then shouldn't indexterms be removed from the list of possible children of > footnote? (And likewise, footnote should not appear in the list of > possible parents of indexterms etc.) > > (BTW, what is the reasoning for not having indexterms in footnotes? I've > seen footnotes indexed in lots of books, sometimes as just the page number > they appear on, and sometimes with the footnote number explict: > foo 13 fn. 7 > Likewise for endnotes.) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Comment By: Mike Maxwell (mcswell) > Date: 2009-07-15 19:45 > > Message: > Just to clarify my agnosticism: one of the constraints says that footnotes > cannot occur in the descendants of footnotes; in addition, footnote is not > a child (or parent) of footnote. That makes sense, so I guess I'm a > theist > there. It's the other constraints, where an element like indexterm or > example is allowed as a child of footnote but not as a grandchild (if > that's what not occurring among the descendants means) that are puzzling > and might need explanation or exemplification. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Comment By: Norman Walsh (nwalsh) > Date: 2009-07-15 14:28 > > Message: > The intent of the additional constraint is to forbid indexterms from > appearing in footnotes or in the descendants of footnotes. I agree that > it's ambiguously worded at the moment and I'll fix that. > > It's a consequence of grammar based schema languages (like DTDs, RELAX NG, > and W3C XML Schema) that it is very difficult to exclude elements from > some > contexts. Since indexterms are allowed in para, and in emphasis, and other > children and descedants of para, in order to exclude them from the content > model, I'd have to define alternate patterns for every possible descendant > without indexterm. > > That's impractical, so instead we use the common patterns and forbid the > use of indexterm inside footnote with an additional constraint. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > You can respond by visiting: > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=384107&aid=2821653&group_id=21935 > > -- > XMLmind XML Editor Support List > xmleditor-support at xmlmind.com > http://www.xmlmind.com/mailman/listinfo/xmleditor-support > >
