OASIS DocBook TC2

DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009
=============================================================

The DocBook Technical Committee will meet on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at
01:00p EDT (10:00a PDT, 17:00GMT, 18:00BST, 19:00CEST, 02:00JST+,
022:30p India+) for 90 minutes.

Attendance at teleconferences is restricted to members
(and prospective members) of the committee.

This is the phone number for Wednesday's DocBook TC call:

Phone: +1-719-387-5556
 Code: 902213

The DocBook TC uses the #docbook IRC channel on
irc.freenode.org.  The IRC channel is used for exchanging
URIs, providing out-of-band comments, and other aspects
of the teleconference, so please join us there if at
all possible.

Agenda

1. Roll call
2. Accepting the minutes [1] of the previous meeting.
3. Next meeting: 16 December 2009
4. Review of the agenda.
5. Review of open action items

  a. Norm to put the new backwards compatibility policy in the spec.

  b. Norm to put the new backwards compatibility policy in the
     reference documentation.

  c. Norm to take a look at the inlines and make a proposal
     regarding RFE 2791288.

  d. Norm to reply to RFE 2820947 (transclusion) with the
     committee's concerns (see the minutes).

  e. Gershon to develop a reltable example.

6.  DocBook 5.0 standards celebration.

7.  New edition of DocBook: The Definitive Guide 

8.  Publishing Subcommittee report.

9.  eLearning Subcommittee report.

10. DocBook assembly schema.

11. topic element (RFE #2820190).

12.  Review of Requests for Enhancement

    To browse a specific RFE, enter the URL (on one line):

      http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&
      group_id=21935&atid=384107&aid=XXXX

    RFEs to revisit for 6.0
      1907003  biblioid content model too broad  

    RFEs to be considered 
      1679665  Add better support for modular documentation  
      2770858  Add limited emphasis to ubiquitous inlines 
      2791288  add quote to corpauthor and gui elements 
      2820190  add a topic element  
      2820947  Ability to transclude text 
      2821653  indexterms in footnotes 


-----

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/200910/msg00022.html

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net

> 

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
> From: Bob Stayton [mailto:bobs@sagehill.net]
> Sent: Monday, 2009 November 16 11:44
> To: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18
> November 2009
> 
> DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18 November 2009
> =============================================================


>       2821653  indexterms in footnotes


First, I note that indexterm is already allowed within paras
within footnotes (at least in DocBook 4.x) which is where I'd 
usually expect an indexterm to be.  The discussion during the
TC call seemed not to realize this, so I wonder if I'm confused
or the discussion was confused.  (Perhaps this is different in
DocBook 5.0--I didn't check.)

I'm not sure how an indexterm as a child of footnote would be 
usefully different from putting the indexterm within the para 
(or other child of footnote, since footnote requires some child) 
that is within the footnote.

Given that footnotes are allowed as descendants of footnote
but just not as immediate children, and given that I don't 
see also allowing indexterm as an immediate child of footnote
as useful, I suggest there is no reason to accept this RFE.

On the other hand, the Arbortext composition products have no
problem handling either indexterms as a children of footnote
or as children of para within footnotes.

paul