Richard Hamilton <
hamilton@xmlpress.net> writes: > Back a couple of years ago, RFE 2900458, "Make xml:id required on > start-of-range index terms," was filed and deferred to 6.0 to avoid > backwards compatibility problems (I'm not quite sure what the > incompatibility was). Here is the link: The issue was requiring an ID where one is not required now. That might break some documents. Not useful ones, probably, since a start-of-range term without an ID can't be referenced, but ... > Right now, it is legal to have a completely empty <indexterm/> (i.e., > no content and no attributes) or to have an <indexterm> with a > <secondary> element but no <primary> element, for example the > following two statements are valid: > > <indexterm/> > <indexterm><secondary>some term</secondary</indexterm> > > It turns out that if class="endofrange", then <indexterm> must be > empty, but the reverse isn't true. That is, all <indexterms> except > those with class="endofrange" should require at least a <primary> > element, but they do not. Interesting. This is probably a consequence of DTD limitations. Primary had to be optional so that an end-of-range term could be empty. I think you're right that primary should be required in the singular and start-of-range terms. That is, alas, backwards incompatible. > So, the question I have is whether this situation should be lumped > into the previous RFE and turn it into a general "clean up index term" > RFE for 6.0, or are there parts that could be handled in an earlier > release? > > Either way, I'm glad to either create a new RFE or update the current one. Let's have a separate issue. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <
ndw@nwalsh.com> Well-being is attained by little
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ and little, and nevertheless it is Chair, DocBook Technical Committee no little thing itself.--Zen of Citium Attachment: pgp7xlyUgnUy6.pgp Description: PGP signature