Re: [docbook] Re: formal objects in docbook 5

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld at sympatico dot ca>]

Norman Walsh wrote:

> The advantage of the role attribute is that you don't have to change
> the stylesheets or editing tools. If you're happy to write your own
> stylesheet customizations, adding a 'requirement' as a peer to
> paragraph would be dead easy:
>
>   include "docbook.rnc"
>
>   db.para.blocks |= my.requirement
>
>   my.requirement = element requirement {
>      db.para.attlist,
>      db.para.info,
>      (db.all.inlines | db.nopara.blocks)*
>   }

yeah, that's exactly what I'm looking for. The question about formal objects
in this context was about whether and how such an extension could be made
compatible with existing templates (where possible), i.e. for example
whether there was a way to make 'requirement' a 'formal object' in the
sense that it becomes possible to generate 'list of requirements' etc.

> | PS: FWIW, I find the 'readyset' project at http://readyset.tigris.org/
> |      quite intriguing, but I think it should be done with docbook, not
> |      xhtml :-)
>
> I'm hardly likely to disagree :-)

I do not doubt it :-)

Regards,
		Stefan