Re: multiple related definitions

That pattern will indeed work; you should be able to put the
`data-dfn-for` on any ancestor, so it can go on the table you're
defining them all in, too.

And yeah, using this pattern is good when the bare names aren't
reasonably obvious on their own.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> I have a document with multiple related definitions.  As well, the obvious
> names of these definitions are rather obscure.   Is there a way of easily
> creating better names, i.e., a compound name like A/B.
>
> The document in question is
>
> A sample definition is (currently)
>
>             <dfn>rdfs1</dfn> ...
>
> As you might expect there are quite a few of these numbered definitions.
>
>
> I was going to try using
>     <section data-dfn-for="RDFS entailment patterns">
>     ...
>     </section>
> in the enclosing section.  But I'm not sure that this will work.
>
> The document is https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics
>
> peter
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2023 21:20:48 UTC