Re: Relating multiple index entries to one table item

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:31:07PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> 
> I've been working on this, and with my current code I have, with the
> following input:
> 
>     @table @asis
>     @item AAA
>     @itemx BBB
>     @vindex index1
>     @vindex index2
>     @vindex index3
>     Hello
>     
>     @end table
> 
> the following output:
> 
>    <dl class="table">
>    <dt id='index-index1'><span>AAA<br>BBB<a class="index-entry-id" id="index-index2"></a>
>    <a class="index-entry-id" id="index-index3"></a>
>    <a class="copiable-link" href='#index-index1'> &para;</a></span></dt>
>    <dd><p>Hello
>    </p>
>    </dd>
>    </dl>

> I think this works well, apart from the treatment of @itemx, which is no
> longer its own <dt> element, which is questionable.  There may be
> better ways than simply separating the @item and @itemx output with <br>.
> I couldn't easily find documentation of the HTML <dl> that said it was
> okay to have two <dt> elements following each other.

It is ok to have two <dt> elements following each other as Arsen
reported too.  Using <br> is not right, as the semantic meaning of
@itemx is lost.  The output should better be along (need to check
whether the copiable anchor is rendered correctly):

<dl class="table">
<dt id='index-index1'><span>AAA<a class="copiable-link" href='#index-index1'> &para;</a></span>
<a class="index-entry-id" id="index-index2"></a>
<a class="index-entry-id" id="index-index3"></a></dt>
<dt>BBB</dt>
<dd><p>Hello
</p>
</dd>
</dl>

As I said before I do not think that it is right to merge the first
index entry with the @item, but that's a separate issue.

-- 
Pat