This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: New element for Step alternatives?
- From: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:48:11 -0500
- Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: New element for Step alternatives?
- References: <200209132023.g8DKN6g11843@purol.East.Sun.COM><87ofa19f5b.fsf@nwalsh.com> <20021015122933.GA11751@sideshowbarker><87r8dpdsp1.fsf@nwalsh.com> <20021118144515.GA11830@sideshowbarker><87n0o5tuyw.fsf@nwalsh.com> <20021119175750.GA12190@sideshowbarker><20021121203406.A15958@caldera.com> <20021204212144.GB18827@sideshowbarker>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org> was heard to say:
| Substeps and the proposed Stepalternatives are containers for
| steps. What I'm suggesting is that we add a parallel generalized
| step container, with the same simple (step+) content model, for
| wrapping sets-of-steps-that-aren't-substeps.
Why? What purpose does this new container have?
I think your argument has been that it would allow users to identify
sets-of-steps for reuse (by pointing to the single wrapper). While
that's true...
| The fact that two or more steps in a row, by themselves, form a
| logical division -- a group of steps -- is something that I think
| ought to be expressible/capturable through markup, and so through
| a content model in the DTD.
There are very few semantically meaningless wrappers for grouping
things in DocBook. I could apply the same arguments to a series of
three paragraphs or to two figures and a table.
Maybe we need to consider the reuse question in more detail, but if
we're going to, I'd like to do it separately and globally, not as part
of a small enhancement to procedure.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Consistency requires you to be as
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | ignorant today as you were a year
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | ago.--Bernard Berenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE98RsbOyltUcwYWjsRAo6ZAKCdQ+FEFVRE99y6WTq2XSoO7X+dTQCdF2Hu
5y0tJVgpq6RTD9ZQkH6exIk=
=FnNi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----