- From: Marcos Caceres <caceres_m@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:27:32 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Hi Peter, As it’s a ReSpec document, it’s probably best to put it directly on the `<dfn>` itself. <dfn data-dfn-for="RDFS entailment patterns">rdfs1</dfn> And then: [=RDFS entailment patterns/rdfs1=] > On 25 Apr 2023, at 2:20 pm, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 21:27:50 UTC