Description of problem: Publican appears to be creating the links to glossary terms, but it is not putting in the anchor IDs. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.7-1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a document with a gloassary 2. Compile 3. View in Firefox. Actual results: When clicking on the links referencing other entries in the glossary, the page goes nowhere. Expected results: The user should be taken to the requested link.
Sample link showing the issue: http://documentation-stage.bne.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Managing_Smart_Cards/Glossary.html#glossary.14380
Publican does not support Glossaries at this time due to limitations in translating them. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684
Jeff, This is not a feature request. This is a report of a defect. This same bug occurred with FAQs and there could well be other areas where this crops up. I'm reopening. As for the subject of glossaries in general, not every document is translated. There could be dozens of products even outside Red Hat that could use glossaries. Bug 475684 is still open because using glossaries is a valid request. Microsoft uses glossaries for their product documentation, and we are supposed to use their stylebook as a reference in our docs. If you don't want to support it *right now* then at least push this bug off into some kind of future bucket, just so this defect doesn't get lost.
(In reply to comment #3) > Jeff, > > This is not a feature request. This is a report of a defect. This same bug > occurred with FAQs and there could well be other areas where this crops up. I'm > reopening. We don't fix issues with the display or use of unsupported tags. FAQs are supported, so the issue was fixed. Glossaries are not supported, therefore the issue will not be addressed. > As for the subject of glossaries in general, not every document is translated. > There could be dozens of products even outside Red Hat that could use > glossaries. Bug 475684 is still open because using glossaries is a valid > request. Microsoft uses glossaries for their product documentation, and we are > supposed to use their stylebook as a reference in our docs. We either support something fully or we don't support it at all. If people want to use unsupported tags then they need to fully support them themselves, which would involve making a brand and doing overriding the XSL. > If you don't want to support it *right now* then at least push this bug off > into some kind of future bucket, just so this defect doesn't get lost. Sure, deferred it is.