[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: re step container for procedure
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes: > [...] > If we had instead changed procedure for consistency, then all these > lists would have been: > > optional title > one or more items > > I don't think this would satisfy Micheal Smith's use case, since it > would not easily allow reusing the steps by reference to their > container without simultaneously reusing the title. Actually, that is what I meant, though I've done a very poor job of saying it. I wrote "group of steps" when to be precise I should have said "group of steps with an optional title and titleabbrev". To clarify, what I'm suggesting is that we: * return the *lists-- Orderedlist etc.-- to their pre-RFE 144 content model: ((title, titleabbrev?)?, listitem+) * create a coordinate content model: ((title, titleabbrev?)?, step+) and call it Stepset or whatever. > I'm opposed to adding a 'stepset' wrapper around the steps (and > by extension a 'listitems' wrapper around the list items): I didn't mean to suggest creating a new "listitems" wrapper. What I meant and should have been more clear about is what I've said above: *lists in their pre-RFE 144 state, something coordinate for steps. > 1. If required, it would introduce a new level of wrapper in every > procedure, even when there was no need for most authors in most cases. > > 2. If optional, it would allow procedures to contain either a set > of steps or a stepset and having two ways to do the same thing > is bad. > > 3. If stepset is allowed to have a title, then you'd have titles > at two different levels in the procedure and that strikes me as > awkward. I can see that Stepset will create additional complexity, but the only alternatives seem to be: X. keep Procedure as is-- realizing that although "Step" is a semantically explicit name for the equivalent of a Listitem in an Orderedlist, the content model for containing Step is not coordinate with the *list content models for containing Listitem Y. forget about creating Stepset and restrict the content model of Procedure to ((title, titleabbrev?)?, step+) Z. make the content models for all *lists coordinate with the Procedure content model: e.g. with <!ELEMENT orderedlist ((%formalobject.title.content;)?, (%component.mix;)*, listitem+)> X preserves an inconsistency and doesn't allow for programmatic storage/reuse of groups of steps (with optional title/titleabbrev). Y I like fine, but I suspect many other people don't agree. Z I pray no one thinks is a good idea. --Mike Smith
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC