| Title: | DOCUMENT T1.0 |
| Notice: | **New notesfile (DOCUMENT.NOTE) now available (see note 897)** |
| Moderator: | CLOSET::ADLER |
| Created: | Mon Feb 09 1987 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Oct 31 1991 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 897 |
| Total number of notes: | 4397 |
In BL06 I was able to redefine tags using the <DEFINE> tag. For example, I was able to redefine <math_char>(RIGHTARROW) to simply <RARROW>, thus saving many keystrokes and keeping many keystroke-conscious engineers at bay. |-) I would now like to redefine <GLOSSARY> and <ENDGLOSSARY> to be <BIBLIOGRAPHY> and <ENDBIBLIOGRAPHY>. Why? Because it seems it would be a lot easier than defining <BIBLIOGRAPHY> and <ENDBIBLIOGRAPHY> and making them compatible with the .DTP contents defs for soft.spec. Thanx to Jim Jackson and Ken Serack at DECWET for providing me with the <bibliography> defs in the first place, but I don't understand .TEX well enough to make it all come together. The .tex defs work fine by themselves in a test .DTP, but everything blows up when I try to merge them into soft.spec. Can't afford the time to futz with it anymore. I can hack this using <GLOSSARY>(BIBLIOGRAPHY), but that's not desirable. WISH_LIST ITEM: Make <BIBLIOGRAPHY> available in all the doctypes, not just <ARTICLE>. Certainly we have bibliographies with our specifications, and it's not too far out to think of them being included in other types of documentation. Thanx Rose
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 197.1 | Aren't bibliography and glossary different critters? | CLOSET::KAIKOW | Fri Apr 03 1987 16:47 | 6 | |
re: 197.0 >I would now like to redefine <GLOSSARY> and <ENDGLOSSARY> to be ><BIBLIOGRAPHY> and <ENDBIBLIOGRAPHY>. Since when is a Bibliography a Glossary? | |||||
| 197.2 | Yes, but the hack works... | COOKIE::JOHNSTON | Fri Apr 03 1987 17:27 | 22 | |
Yes, they are different. But by using <GLOSSARY>(BIBLIOGRAPHY) I can get a page with the big, bold title "BIBLIOGRAPHY", and page numbering like "Bibliography-1", and entry in the table of contents. I've defined a tag <BIB_ENTRY> that can be used to tag each bibliographical reference, hence: <BACK_MATTER> <GLOSSARY>(BIBLIOGRAPHY) <BIB_ENTRY> <BIB_ENTRY> . . <ENDGLOSSARY> <ENDBACK_MATTER> This only works because <GLOSSARY> accepts optional text for the title. So, I rather code it correctly using just <BIBLIOGRAPHY> tags, but this works in the interim. Rose | |||||
| 197.3 | I'm certainly not religious, but ... | CLOSET::KAIKOW | Sat Apr 04 1987 12:03 | 3 | |
re: 197.2 Yes, I was aware of that, but doesn't that violate the SGML religion? | |||||
| 197.4 | not a good workaround | CLOSET::ANKLAM | Sun Apr 05 1987 13:58 | 12 | |
It's a bit late to think about adding tags for V1.0, but will put
this on the list. Rose's workaround using <glossary>(Bibliography)
won't work quite as well in the update that is coming. I had
to de-couple the page-number prefix from the argument specified
to <glossary> to avoid problems in things like
<GLOSSARY>(Glossary of the Newest Terms and Abbreviations)
'cuz the page numbering was a little bizarre.
patti
| |||||