Re: [docbook-tc] Fwd: Status of bug #281: allow xi:include in set

[Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net>]

I would favor the relaxed version, because I see no compelling reason to 
restrict what people mix in a set.

If we do that, you could move the closing parens from after db.article 
to after db.xi.include, no?

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net

On 2/26/2015 12:28 PM, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> writes:
> > I just checked the latest schemas that Norm uploaded to OASIS, and
> > it appears that this is indeed a bug.
> >
> > In all other instances of xi:include in the DB XInclude schema, the
> > xi:include was part of a pattern named db.*.content or
> > db.*.components, and then that pattern is used with a repeatable
> > suffix in the element definition. But in set, we have:
> >
> > db.set.components =
> >    ((db.set | db.book)+ | db.article+)
> >    | db.xi.include
> >
> >      element set {
> >        db.set.attlist,
> >        db.set.info,
> >        db.toc.components?,
> >        db.set.components,
> >        db.setindex.components?
> >      }
> >
> > That only allows a single xi:include in place of other elements. We
> > must allow more than one, and we must allow a mix of xi:include and
> > elements.
>
> Yep. We don't do that in set because we forbid mixing books and articles
> in a set.
>
> Given how relaxed we are about such things in other places, perhaps the
> straightforward fix is:
>
>   db.set.components =
>     (db.set | db.book | db.article)
>     | db.xi.include
>
>       element set {
>         db.set.attlist,
>         db.set.info,
>         db.toc.components?,
>         db.set.components+,
>         db.setindex.components?
>       }
>
> Alternatively, we could work a little harder:
>
>   db.set.components =
>     ((db.set | db.book | db.xi.include)+ | (db.article | db.xi.include)+)
>
>       element set {
>         db.set.attlist,
>         db.set.info,
>         db.toc.components?,
>         db.set.components+,
>         db.setindex.components?
>       }
>
> Thoughts?
>                                          Be seeing you,
>                                            norm