<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.32.2"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 16:53 -0600, Matt Dew wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> >> >> >> >> For reference inside the doc, would it not be more appropriate to use >> >> xref or something? >> >> I thought olink were for refrence across external documents? One >> >> drawback of using olinks >> >> is that the masterdb may or may not be there. There may be a >> >> performance issue as well, >> >> or other unforeseen side-effects. No need to use a bigger hammer than >> >> necessary. >> >> >> There were a couple small reasons that together made me think internal >> olinks were better. Consistency, olinks everywhere therefore no >> confusion, and xref's generated ugly output. You can't define the link > How about <link> <A HREF="http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/link.html">http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/link.html</A> That dawned on me about 30 seconds after I hit send. link is very close to olink. xref is not but lets us customize: (<A HREF="http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/CustomXrefs.html">http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/CustomXrefs.html</A>) So that I don't have another senior moment. The options I'm aware of are: olink - external links to other docs in this collection link - hyperlinks within this doc ulink - links to anywhere, uses URIs xref - links within this document, template-able I like that xrefs lets us insert things like Page # and Chapter # in the output. I like pg#s in pdf links. Should, for the moment, we try to use one or the other so that we don't add to the tag proliferation, or does it matter? I can see cases for each. Your thoughts? </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> I think you can find the answers here: <BLOCKQUOTE> <PRE> <A HREF="http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/Db5Tools.html#Db5LinkExamples">http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/Db5Tools.html#Db5LinkExamples</A> </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> We should be looking ahead to see how things will work in docbook5. Eventually we will get there, might as well minimize the work. If I understand docbook versioning, v5 is not backward compatible to v4, but v4 docs can be migrated to v5. Whatever link types we choose, it should be tested and/or migrated with v5. It is best if the links of various types are used in consistent manner in all docs, not implying that only one link type should be used. Whether generated text or not is used if yet another decision to make. </BODY> </HTML>