This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Using glossterms to refer to refentries
- From: BigSmoke <bigsmoke at home dot nl>
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- Cc: docbook mailing list <docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:31:49 +0100
- Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: Using glossterms to refer to refentries
- Organization: BigSmoke
- References: <200212071721.17838.bigsmoke@home.nl> <87of73ftf0.fsf@nwalsh.com>
On Monday 30 December 2002 15:55, Norman Walsh wrote:
> I think so. Why do you want to treat them as glossary entries if
> they're reference pages? Are they semantically glossary terms as far
> as your concerned?
Well, there's my little problem: Semantically, they're system items.
They're comparable to objects, but then they're not since there are no
classes in my system.
systemitem isn't of much use to me since the moreinfo attribute
contains an enumeration instead of an id, and none of the classes resemble
what I need.
One of the reasons why I like glossterm so much is because of the baseform
attribute and the choise from firstterm, glossterm and acronym.
> Why do you want glossterm instead of simply 'link' or 'xref'?
That's a good point. I could consider that link and xref are semantically more
correct than glossterm.
Thanks for your sound advice.
Sincerely,
- Rowan
--
Furiosity feverishly fears.