Re: [docbook-tc] legalsection versus section in legalnotice

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> writes:
> Thanks for your quick responses. If we are going to allow
> legalnotice outside of info, then we have do settle what class of
> element it will be so we can determine how it fits into other
> content models.

My two cents from the peanut gallery: Iâd add it to db.nopara.blocks.
Possibly by creating a new pattern, maybe âdb.notice.blocksâ or
something. It strikes me as *almost* being a candidate for putting in
admonitions. But a new pattern is probably best.

> Most of our elements can be classified as hierarchical, block, or
> inline. The current legalnotice would be considered a block element
> and could appear anywhere within a section alongside tables and
> paras and figures. If a new legalnotice contains sections, doesn't
> that make it a kind of section itself? That is, could you put a
> legalnotice in the middle of a section, add subsections to it, and
> continue with block content after the legalnotice closing tag? We
> don't allow block content after a regular section.

Yeah. Iâd be really reluctant to allow section in legalnotice for just
that reason. (If the TC decides to allow section in legalnotice which
is a block like thing, then itâs worth revisiting if section should
be allowed in other blocks, like sidebar, I expect.)

The bridgehead element can always be used to simulate a title; all
youâd be missing is truly nested hiearchy and I wonder if thatâs
justifiably necessary.

> Perhaps if it is going to be in content, then we should just call it
> legalsection, and allow it as another flavor of section wherever
> section is allowed? It could contain nested legalsections as needed.

That wouldnât be my first choice, but I suppose it could be made to
work. Lots of complicated questions with no obviously right answers,
such as, how would one expect them to be enumerated?

And the question of where does it fit into the sect1 vs section vs
simplesect hierarchy arises. Iâd be tempted to make it behave like
simplesect, myself.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To think is not enough; you must think
http://nwalsh.com/            | of something.--Jules Renard

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature