> > IMHO <note> is on semantic level very close to seealso. Using role > > is standard DocBook way to make it different from standard note. > > Jirka, please don´t make changes for the rendering of the "see also" > notes until there is a solution for the incomplete PDF manuals. IMHO > it is an overkill. It is much better to write the "see also" notes > as before. Indeed it will be too complex if you consider the other > languages with different rules for rendering.
It is great to hear some comments from you ;) First, adding this style sheet customization technically only adds an option for manual writers, to use this format, so it won't change the current PDF rendering in any way. Can you please explain, why do you think "it is much better to write the "see also" notes as before"? I would be glad to hear some opinions. Can you show us any language where not the ["See also" + list] form is used, with "See also" replaced by the translated version? We have example, table and other titles autogenerated this way for years now, and noone complained about them... Showing see also parts in a different notation makes them easily distinguisable from manual text. Our Windows manual user survey pointed out, that see also is one of the very best used parts of the manual, so as for useability, we should mark them clearly distinguisable from normal text IMHO. Goba
