On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:52:14AM -0700, arn...@skeeve.com wrote: > Hi Eli. > > > Is this a real-life example? Because if it is, I don't understand how > > "@command{awk} program" ended up in @dfn, since the latter is supposed > > to be used for introducing new terminology, which this phrase isn't. > > Yes, it's a real example. Here is the full paragraph: > > The term @command{awk} refers to a particular program as well as > to the language you use to tell this program what to do. When we > need to be careful, we call the language ``the @command{awk} > language,'' and the program ``the @command{awk} utility.'' > This @value{DOCUMENT} explains both how to write programs in the > @command{awk} language and how to run the @command{awk} utility. > The term @dfn{@command{awk} program} refers to a program written > by you in the @command{awk} programming language. > > I can, and probably will, work around this by changing it to say > > ... The term ``@command{awk} program'' referss to ...
I think this is not the correct way. If this is really an expression, it should not have additional formatting. I would have written the The term @dfn{awk program} refers to a program written ... and in the remaining I would have used "awk program" each time I refer to that term, as it is a concept with awk here as a language and not a command. I cannot imagine any case of @dfn with @command, or @file or any such semantic commands within @dfn, as what they mark (a file, command...) is always different from what @dfn marks (a concept). > But the general issue of context sensitivity in Docbook remains. > I can find other examples, I'm pretty sure. If you find other examples, I will try to fix them, as we try to have valid docbook produced. If workarounds are needed, in general I will simply drop the inner formatting. I though that there were already such workarounds in the current code, but I gave a rapid look at the code and nothing seemed to exist. But those issues, in fact prevented to use quite a bit of docbook commands, when they were too restricted in what they may contain. -- Pat