I went searching to see what we had in the TC minutes about <glossarylist> and <glossref>: 08 May 2018 ----------- 15. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals Initial discussion: Redefine <glosslist> in bookmap
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201804/msg00104.html (Kimber, 30 April 2018) Eliot: glosslist as currently defined in bookmap says that it represents a generated glossary list and that's fine but there's no defined mechanism by which a tool could know how to generate glossaries. But if we also integrate the glossref domain in the way that Eric described then it makes sense to make glossref a child of glosslist. Then it would no longer be generated and we'd need to make it clear that using it to generate a little glossary is an acceptable alternative Kris: Is this just a tweak to existing spec language or do we need a proposal? Eliot: It may require a proposal, I haven't thought about it in more detail than in the email Kris: I think you're maxed out with proposals right now Kris: Is anyone on the call interested in moving this foward? Eric: We might as well add it to mine because it will fall in together Eliot: glosslist does allow multiple glossdefs so I think it's just spec language; just change the content model to allow topicref or glossref Eric: That's how I would envision it I could not find any other discussion. I'm not sure that we need to include this in the Bookmap updates proposal, since <glosslist> currently does permit <topicref>. If an implementation integrate the glossary reference domain into their bookmap shell, they will be able to use <glossref> within <glosslist>. The relevant question is Does the TC want to integrate the glossary reference domain in the bookmap shell that the TC ships with DITA 2.0 ? What would be the pros and cons? -- Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)