attribution/source/byline
Forum topic: Submitted by ngn_at_ebbr on Mon, 2009-03-09 10:54. Last updated on Mon, 2009-03-09 10:59.
Some of the definitions in a definition-list have clearly-defined attributions, for example ISO. It seems logical, if the goal is to produced a set of structured and searchable files, to use something like
[dlentry]
[dt]name of term goes here[/dt]
[dd]definition of term goes here
[source]attribution goes here[/source]
[/dd]
[/dlentry]
[source] is clearly not the element to use here, though; nor is [author].
Any suggestions?
Search
Recent Content
- Forum for DITA Users
35 weeks ago - Publishing for DITA
5 years ago - Optimizing the DITA Authoring Experience — Online Course
5 years ago - Linking to another chunked topic
5 years ago - Advanced Reuse Strategies — Online Course
5 years ago - 2019 Content Management Strategies/DITA North America Conference
5 years ago
Subscribe
Navigation
Currently online: 1 guest and 0 users:
maybe glossary?
The glossentry structure has a bit more structure to it than a dlentry, including relationships - maybe that would give you what you're looking for?
Michael Priestley
Thanks, Michael – I've
Thanks, Michael – I've been and checked glossdef in the 1.1 specification, but didn't spot anything obvious. Would it be appropriate to use data-about, do you think?
glossdef vs dlentry
With a glossary structure, you could add related-links after the glossdef.
That said, maybe that's too heavy-weight. Maybe the simplest approach would be a <dl> like you have, but add a second <dd> with a <cite> or <xref> in it when there's a source to refer to.
I'd tend away from data-about - the data elements are primarily for machine processing (ie, they don't have default output to human-readable formats).
Michael Priestley
Thanks, Michael - you're
Thanks, Michael - you're right about related-links, as I hadn't intended to set up real live links to the sources. A second [dd] with a [cite] sounds like an elegant compromise!