Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
The "problem" is the
increased usage of <xref>. Previously authors were encouraged to use
<link> to add internal links, which requires text content, so this was
no problem. The adoption of <xref> lead to this problem.
Should we avoid using xref?
I don't think so that now it is an option. It is quite convinient in
places like the extensions.xml file, where generated content is
automatically translated with the titles, and this is the intention of
using xref elsewhere too. Less work for translators to look up how
exactly they translated some titles => more consistency in translations.
+1, xref is a neet feature.
1. What would we put into <para xreflabel="..."> in place of the dots in
the missing-ids.xml file?
The proper link-test?
Sure, this depends on the content of the id=".."
For the example <para id="ini.com.allow-dcom"> this would become
<para id="ini.com.allow-dcom" xreflabel="com.allow_dcom">
For ini stuff, this works because of some strict rules for naming.
Otherwise we might not have this type of rule to generate a meaningful
title. What if we do
<para id="ini.com.allow-dcom" xreflabel="ini.com.allow-dcom (&missing;)">
Where &missing; is translated obviously. It would give some clue to
users why clicking on that link leads to no content. :)
Fine with me, but we should place &missing; at top of missing-ids.xml
So the following should be the solution for this "problem":
missing-ids.xml:
....
&missing;
<para id="ini.com.allow-dcom" xreflabel="ini.com.allow-dcom"></para>
....
and put &missing; in language-snippets.ent.
Benefit: linking to appendix missing-stuff with a short explanation is
working again ;-)
Friedhelm
