Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Multiple-language glossterms

[Bob Stayton <bobs at sco dot com>]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 06:50:27AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> -----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.

Most likely because a term can have more than one distict
definition.  "image" as graphics file, "image" as
CD-ROM snapshot.


Bob Stayton                                 400 Encinal Street
Publications Architect                      Santa Cruz, CA  95060
Technical Publications                      voice: (831) 427-7796
The SCO Group                               fax:   (831) 429-1887
                                            email: bobs at sco dot com