This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Multiple-language glossterms
- From: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- To: "Florian G. Haas" <f dot g dot haas at gmx dot net>
- Cc: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:50:27 -0500
- Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: Multiple-language glossterms
- References: <200303171007.33558.f.g.haas@gmx.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ "Florian G. Haas" <f dot g dot haas at gmx dot net> was heard to say:
| <glossterm>Net present value (German: <foreignphrase
| lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase></glossterm>
|
| anywhere in the text where I wanted a glossary reference (so the docbook-xsl
| stylesheets would be able to produce links in the text).
Or make the links explicit:
<glossterm linkend="gloss-npv">Net present value ...</glossterm>
...
<glossentry id="gloss-npv">...
| Another alternative is this:
|
| <glossentry id="ge_npv">
| <glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm>
| <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
| <glossdef>
| <para>
| <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
| </para>
| </glossdef>
| </glossentry>
| <glossentry>
| <glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm>
| <glosssee otherterm="ge_npv"/>
| </glossentry>
|
| .. which I also find ugly, as it doesn't really reflect that "net present
| value" and "Kapitalwert" are really the same thing.
Yeah. Well, the glosssee makes it pretty clear, but it's going to be tedious
for users of the glossary.
| What would help is something along these lines:
|
| <glossentry>
| <glossterm lang="en">Net present value</glossterm>
| <glossterm lang="de">Kapitalwert</glossterm>
| <acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
| <glossdef>
| <para>
| <!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
| </para>
| </glossdef>
| </glossentry>
How about:
<glossentry>
<glossterm>Net present value (German: <foreignphrase
lang="de">Kapitalwert</foreignphrase></glossterm>
<acronym lang="en">NPV</acronym>
<glossdef>
<para>
<!-- Elaborate description of NPV follows. -->
</para>
</glossdef>
</glossentry>
| Yet a glossentry only allows one child glossterm (although it does allow
| multiple glossdefs, so multi-language definitions of one single-language
| glossary term are OK). What's the reasoning behind this; what would be a good
| way to resolve the issue described using the present DTD? Or would this
| warrant an RFE?
I no longer recall why multiple glossdefs are allowed. Probably so
that they could be written for different audiences or security levels
or something.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com> | All our foes are mortal.--Valéry
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ |
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE+dbaDOyltUcwYWjsRAsftAJ9aJ/cG8l6t7o9wSpIqV3DxByULhgCfSx+3
sKnhq1f6rgCwzslWGg4LcVY=
=EdQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----