As I said, I'm okay with allowing indexterm as a child of footnote
if we feel it is worthwhile making that change (that has not been
the case throughout DB 4.x, so I question the need).
But you're inventing some kind of semantic that doesn't exist.
Unless you have indexterm-start and indexterm-end elements that
apply the index semantic to all the intervening content or some
other way to indicate to what content an indexterm applies, indexterms
don't apply to anything. They are point-wise things. The point
on the composed page corresponding to where the indexterm element
occurred is the point that determines the page number in the index,
and the contents of the indexterm gives the index entry content.
To take an example having nothing to do with footnotes, suppose
you have a indexterm immediately following a para start tag. If
you claim that such an indexterm applies to the para, then what
happens when that para flows over a page break? Do you expect
both pages to be reflected in the index? If the indexterm applied
to the para, you should get both page numbers in the index, but
I claim you should only get the first page number because the
indexterm applies just to the point at which it occurred.
Going back to the footnote, if you claim the indexterm applies
to the footnote, would you expect the footnote callout (e.g.,
the superscripted number) to be a target of the index entry
as well as the footnote body?
paul
>
Original Message-----
> From: Rowland, Larry [mailto:larry.rowland@hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 2009 November 19 9:49
> To: Grosso, Paul; docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org;
docbook@lists.oasis-
> open.org
> Subject: RE: [docbook] RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee
> Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009
>
> To me, an index term is at least as likely to apply to an entire
> footnote as it is to an element contained within the footnote. I
would
> favor allowing it as a child of footnote.
>
> Larry Rowland
>
>
Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:34 AM
> To: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [docbook] RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee
> Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009
>
> [I'm not sure Mike's email made it to the lists, so I'm forwarding
> it along with a response of mine.]
>
> >