Fwd: Re: Annoying problem: embedded HTML in body of documentation tag

• To: thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Subject: Fwd: Re: Annoying problem: embedded HTML in body of documentation tag
• From: Benno Blumenthal <benno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:44:36 -0500

----- Forwarded message from Rob Raskin <raskin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----
    Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:41:59 -0800
    From: Rob Raskin <raskin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Rob Raskin <raskin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: Re: Annoying problem:  embedded HTML in body of documentation tag
      To: Benno Blumenthal <benno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This doesn't even sound like a documentation - its sounds like a
reference, which might need its own XML tags - title, author, etc.  That
my be going above and beyond what is needed, but it would make sense to
have a Reference tag and associated fields.

-Rob


Benno Blumenthal wrote:
> 
> Hello Rob,
> 
> That certainly makes sense in the abstract:  my particular example is
> 
> <documentation>KAPLAN Indices:  of RSA_MOHSST5; from Kaplan et al. 1998:
> <i>JGR</i>, <b>103</b>, 18,567-18,589, and  Cane et al. 1997: <i>Science</i>,
> <b>275</b>, 957--960, and those related to them</documentation>
> 
> which does not seem to rate a separate page.
> 
> Benno
>

----- End forwarded message -----

• Follow-Ups:
  • Annoying problem: embedded HTML
    • From: Robert Casey