Re: Relating multiple index entries to one table item

[Gavin Smith]

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 think deciding on the right output for the existing usage and
> > implementing such is more important than devising and implementing
> > new language constructs.
> 
> Sure, except that for that case, I do not think that we can decide what
> is the best output for the existing usage, as some users could want
> index entries merged with @ftable @item while some other may not.
> Adding a new language construct allows to make everyone happy.  The
> current @ftable keeps not having index entries merged with @item, while
> they are in the new construct, and in a more explicit/controlled way.
> Of course this should be weighted against one more new language
> construct, but to me, automatically merging one preceding/following
> index entry to @ftable @item is not right.

@ftable and @vtable may be treated differently to @table as they provide
their own index entries.