I like Norm's suggestion. Related links "feels" more like metadata than
inline content, and as the documentation states: "Many of the elements
in this wrapper may be used in presentation..."
Best regards,
--Scott
Scott Hudson
Senior XML Architect
+1 (303) 542-2146 | Office
+1 (720) 663-SCOT [7268] | Gvoice
http://www.flatironssolutions.com
Norman Walsh wrote:
> "Bob Stayton" <> writes:
>
>> A relatedlink element provides a solution to this problem. Instead of
>> an explicit cross reference, an author can insert a relatedlink
>> element at any point in a topic element like an indexterm.
>>
>
> Index terms have to be located inline because their location
> identifies a target for a cross-reference. In the case of relatedlink,
> it sounds like the relationship is from (some parent of) the
> relatedlink element to some other place.
>
> If a relatedlink element appears in a para in a section in a chapter
> in a part in a book in a set, what determines the granularity of the
> link source?
>
> It sounds to me like perhaps relatedlink should be allowed inside an
> info wrapper and not in inline content.
>
>
>> Allowing relatedlink elements to appear inline permits them to be kept
>> close to the text they are related to. Then if the text is deleted, so
>> is the relatedlink. If the text is modified, then the relatedlink can
>> be evaluated by the author to see if it is still relevant.
>>
>
> Can you give a concrete example of a relatedlink element?
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
>
