Re: Relating multiple index entries to one table item

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 10:12:21PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:49:33PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:23:24PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > Maybe not important if there are other changes afterwards, but with the
> > > change, in HTML, the result is now invalid, as the index entries end up
> > > not associated with the index term <dt>, but after the index term.  This
> > > is not correct, as the outer <dl> should only contain <dl> and <dt>.  It
> > > may not be an issue at all if you do further changes, or it could be an
> > > issue to be solved in the HTML converter.
> > 
> > I'll check this output and see I can change it to be valid again.
> 
> I've reverted my change as I couldn't make it work out right and it is
> not clearly right.
> 
> I'm starting to think that it should be index entries *before* the @item that
> are associated with the @item, not after it.  I feel this may be easier to
> implement.  This would leave the Info output unaltered.

I thought a bit more on that issue, and indeed, even if the index
entries lead to the @item when they are before the item, it could still
make sense to reparent them to the @item, at the beginning instead of
being before the @item, and, in HTML in the end of the previous <dt> or
<dl>.

I still think that a tree transformation that gather the index entries
before the @item, between @item and @itemx and after @itemx and reparent
them to the @item would be the best option.  I do not think that it is
the job of the parsing to reorganize the tree.

-- 
Pat