[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: re step container for procedure
Michael Smith wrote: ... | > | Possible Solution | > | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | > | The solution I'd like to discuss is to create a "Stepset" element with | > | a simple Orderedlist-like structure | > | | > | <!ELEMENT stepset ((title, titleabbrev?)?, step+) | > | > Which is probably what procedure should have been. | | Too late now. That's why I'm suggesting addition of Stepset instead of | radically restricting Procedure-- a compromise. Never too late once you realize you've made a mistake. ... | > | 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. | > | > It's already possible to reuse the set of steps - use an entity. | | Yep-- an excellent workaround that will always work. But a workaround. Not a workaround, but a fundamental facility of SGML. As this facility is available, no argument that markup is necessary to make reuse possible is coherent. | > Your proposal would introduce a container that's useless when the | > procedure has no intro | | Sorry, I can't concede that Stepset would be useless when the | procedure has no intro. | | > (and there would be *many* questions and complaints about that) | | What's the alternative? It seems like you and I are pretty much in | agreement that the current model for Procedure is flawed. Or not? | If you agree, what fix do you think would work best? Eliminate the intro stuff, or at very least go no farther in making procedure like a section. | Essentially, what I'm saying is that it seems to me the Steps in a | Procedure are basically like the Listitems in an Orderedlist. Is that | an accurate statement? No. Look at the content models. | If it is accurate, it seems like we need a | container for Steps that is like the containers we have for Listitems. As I pointed out and you agreed (in elided lines), we have no container just for listitems. And you haven't justified any need for one. | This is also why I don't think RFE 144 is a good idea. The Procedure | content model should not be used as a precedent for changes to the | content models of other lists. It seems to me that Para or Formalpara | can already be used for in the scenario that RFE 144 describes. RFE 144 is adding intro material to lists. I see now (though I didn't before) that this is not a good idea. But at this point I'll leave things to the Docbook TC. regards, Terry Allen
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC