[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: The problem with <procedure> & a possible solution
In a previous message, I tried to outline a proposal for creating a Stepset element and adding it to Procedure, like this: <!ELEMENT stepset ((title, titleabbrev?)?, step+) <!ELEMENT procedure ((%formalobject.title.content;)?, (%component.mix;)*, stepset+)> With this model, a tree view for a simple Procedure would look like: procedure |--title |--para* |--stepset+ |--title? |--step+ |.... Here's a bit more of what I see as the rationale for making the change. Brief Rationale for adding Stepset to Procedure ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Having a Stepset container that contains only Steps (like a *list container that contains only Listitems) enables a greater degree of modularity/ granularity in reuse of Steps among different documents. For example, many documentation group create training courseware along with their admin guides and whatever. My experience with procedures in courseware is: though the steps for a given procedure in a training guide may be identical to the steps for the same procedure in an admin guide, the set of steps is sometimes labeled with a different title in each book, and often a different introductory paragraph. Having a Stepset container would make it possible for authoring groups to store and reuse *just* a set of steps itself-- without the Title or Para material specific to the particular context of the admin guide or the context of the training manual. That's just one example. But I think it makes the rationale clear, as concisely as I can put it. I think it would be a good idea to have a discussion about making that change before the DocBook TC tries resolve Sabine's proposal for adding content after the steps. --Mike Smith
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC