This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?
- From: steven dot cogorno at sun dot com (Steven Cogorno)
- To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>
- Cc: David Cramer <dcramer at motive dot com>,docbook mailing list <docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:51:15 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?
Robert P. J. Day said:
> i don't follow this logic. in a way, a procedure is just another
> kind of list, if you want to look at it that way. and, certainly,
> all of the list-type elements can be children of paras.
And paras probably ought not be children of paras.
> folks recommended making a list a child of a para, or the next
> sibling element. the response was to consider whether the
> list and the para were inherently linked, so that it made no
> sense to have one without the other.
I think what you are talking about is the "list intro." It's now possible
to put a para within list before the list items. THis allows the list to
contain the intro and all of the list items.
Procedure's aren't simply a list of steps - steps can have alternatives,
substeps and content that introduces the steps. If procedures were permitted
in para, then procdures could nest within themselves.
> consider a possible para:
>
> <para>If you want to start writing in DocBook, here are the
> steps you'll need to do:
> <procedure>
> ....
> </procedure>
> </para>
>
> this makes perfect sense, and it's clear that the <procedure>
> element logically belongs within the paragraph.
So tag it as:
<procedure>
<para> If you want to start writing in DocBook, here are the
steps you'll need to do:</para>
<step>...</step>
</procedure>
Steve Cogorno
Sun Microsystems