Re: [docbook-tc] Very rough proposal for DocBook transclusions

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 21 July 2010 18:22, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:
> Dave Pawson wrote:
>
>> I'm not entirely happy about driving docbook markup by todays tools
>> and their capability. I think the attribute version seems 'right'.
>
> As I have already said I have no strong preference on this. Using
> element content seemed more convenient for me.


OK, I'm +1 for the attribute option.

>
>> What purpose does <application><ref .../> serve?
>
> Nothing special, reference is simply enclosed in application element, so
> after transclusion is processed you will get
>
> <application>FooWiz</application>
>

Doh! Thanks for the clarification. Please make that clear in any
more formal documentation, i.e. that "the content of the application
element is used as an example of transclusion"
(fooled me, I thought it was a required wrapper!)


> Also, while it is not shown in examples, def element can contain any
> markup. So you can also have:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <article xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook";>
>  <info>
>    <title>Transclusions demo</title>
>    <definitions>
>      <def name="product-version">3.14</def>
>      <def name="product-name"><application>FooWiz</application></def>
>      <def name="corp-name">ACME Inc.</def>
>    </definitions>
>  </info>
>  <para>The latest version of <ref>product-name</ref>
>    from <ref>corp-name</ref> is <ref>product-version</ref>.</para>
> </article>
>
> Hope it is more clear now.
>
>                                Jirka

Well you did say you were short of time!
I hadn't realised it could be used ... is  'general entity' the right
expression?
I.e. I can have elements and CDATA in the expanded version.


Thanks Jirka.

I'm +1.

ps. When you want the idiot to test drive the documentation
and examples, please 'See me' :-)


regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk