I agree this is a bit heavy, but at least the markup is clear and the content is easily translatable, even by machine translation. I vote for this. I'm assuming there is no need for full-featured acronym and term expansion that the glossary entry markup introduced in DITA 1.2 supports.
Gershon
On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Norman Walsh wrote:
> "Bob Stayton" <> writes:
>> etc.). So it seems just adding <expansion> to the existing mix would
>> have to be done, with the explanation that its location in the content
>> is arbitrary and it may or may not be output, which seems a bit
>> awkward. What do you think?
>
> I think we may have to put the wrapper in the other way:
>
> <expansion>
> <acronym>NASA</acronym>
> <alt>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</alt>
> </expansion>
>
> But that seems awfully heavy.
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <> | The shoe that fits one person
> http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | pinches another; there is no
> Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | recipe for living that suits all
> | cases.-- Jung
