Another question: why does the spec disallow the nesting of glossary
topics within other topic types or, to say it another way, why don't we
define a specialization of concept called "glossary" that includes
glossentry? That's exactly what I was expecting to find when I saw the
heading "Glossary elements" and the phrase "Glossary topics".
While the mechanism may be intended to support more automatic generation
of glossaries it shouldn't preclude the creation of explicitly-ordered
and organized glossaries. For example, it might be very useful to create
a master glossary as a single document (because, for example, all the
terms are managed by a single person). That is, it seems reasonable to
be able to have something like this:
I don't think there's anything in the standard that absolutely prohibits
me from doing this myself but the language under glossentry to the
effect that "glossentry *cannot* be contained by anything else" would
appear to prohibit it.
I don't see any reason to do so.
Cheers,
E.
--
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759
(214) 954-5198
ekimber@innodata-isogen.com
www.innodata-isogen.com