David Cramer (Tech Pubs) wrote:
>The downsides of using linkends and ids are:
>
>1) You must include the glossary in the doc so that it will validate (or
>modify the DTD so it won't consider linkends on glossterms IDREFs).
>
>
Yes, you are right. But maybe a (pre)process similar to target-db
generation for olinking could solve this.
>2) It's extra work for the writer to add the linkend to every glossterm,
>and
>
>
Debugging the document because you misspelled the glossterm is also
extra work ;-)
>3) If you're editor helps you out by populating other IDREF attributes
>with all the IDs in the doc, all the glossentry ids will clutter that
>list of candidate IDs (which would otherwise consist mostly of chapter
>and sections).
>
>
I have >500 Ids in my documentation of a software module (1 out of 7).
If one uses prefixes consequently for every sort of id, finding the
right id isn't that difficult anymore. But a lot of discipline is needed
if you work in multi-author environment. My editor sorts the id's and is
able to filter the prefix "glo-" when I'm using linkend in the context
of glossterm.
>We do use linkends and ids and some glossary generation xslts of our own
>that predate the ones in the stock xsls. We have a system that actually
>modifies the DTD so that the linkend attribute on glossterm is an
>enumeration of all the ids in our master glossary (i.e. that bit of the
>dtd is dynamically generated). That solves #1 and #2. #3 we solve by
>customizing the editor. It all ends up working, but took effort to set
>up.
>
>
Modifying the DTD isn't very straight forward and doesn't solve the
problem of the ambiguity with acronyms described in my 2nd mail :-(.
Perhaps I'll try to figure out a small stylesheet for collecting the
effectively used glossterms. A copy process on the glossary database,
that kicks out all glossentries, that weren't referenced - shouldn't be
that difficult.
BTW, a small script, that sorts the glossentries in a glossary
(respecting glossdiv,...), would be welcome as well, or I have to write
it myself.
Georges
>David
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Georges Schmitz [mailto:]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 9:14 AM
>>To: docbook-apps
>>Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Collecting glossentries in
>>glossary database
>>
>>Using text content of glossterms, one drawback comes into my
>>mind: the existing mechansim cannot deal with 2 acronyms
>>spelled in the same way, but meaning different things. This
>>may exactly happen in the aviation licensing domain; you have
>>international and national acronyms that intersect.
>>
>>If I split national and international glossterms in different
>>glossdivs, I cannot even be sure, that linking gets me to the
>>right page.
>>
>>Just a thought...
>>Georges
>>
>>
>>
>>>...<glossterm linkend="glo-jar">JAR</glossterm>...
>>>I'm asking myself why the stylesheets are only relying on the text
>>>node content of glossterm and firstterm (or the |baseform|
>>>
>>>
>>attribute),
>>
>>
>>>and why the stylesheet will not collect the glossary
>>>
>>>
>>entries by using
>>
>>
>>>the linkend attribute (wouldn't this be safer anyway)? Is there a
>>>special reason for this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:
>
>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------
Georges Schmitz
Projektleitung
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tel: 09131 / 877-176
Fax: 09131 / 877-136
Mob: 0163 / 877 1623
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HEITEC AG
Werner-von-Siemens-Str. 61
91052 Erlangen
--------------------------------------
