[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: DOCBOOK: funcdef/function/returnvalue
In TDG the examples for funcdef are of this style: <funcdef>int <function>sample</function></funcdef> However, the content model for function allows the returnvalue element. This implies that one could markup that same function as: <funcdef><function><returnvalue>int</returnvalue> sample</function></funcdef> Now the question is whether that's sensible. (I'd argue that returntype is a better name for an element in this context.) How would others markup such function definitions? Staying with TDG or going with the alternative. I've a document with 900 such function definitions. Some done as TDG and others as the alternative. Clearly I have to go with one or the other, whichever I choose there's work to be done. But which one do I adopt? Regards, Trevor British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living language. Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now! Details at http://www.fdp.org.uk/ or http://www.bsl-march.co.uk/ -- <>< Re: deemed!
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC