[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: New element for Step alternatives?
Hi Sabine, Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. I agree with you that adding some "choice" markup for procedures would be a good thing, but I still wonder about some of the details. You wrote: > Sabine - looking at all the examples you've given, it seems like they > could actually all be marked up using existing elements and attributes, > without the need to add a new wrapper ("Alternatives" or whatever), but > by using the existing Substeps wrapper with an attribute to indicate the > relationship between the set of steps it's being used to group. > > That's the same suggestion Paul made. Whereas it is true that using an > attribute could indicate the relationship of the substep to the parent, > that implementation wouldn't work as well for us in processing as creating a > new container. Hmm, could you explain what you mean by "wouldn't work well"? Off hand, I can't actually see how it could make any difference on the processing side. Seems like, as far as adding "choice" markup at the substep level (not at the step level -- that's a different deal) goes, the only reason that might justify adding it as an element instead of a new attribute value is if you need to subclass it for some reason -- that is, if you need <alternatives type="foo">, to distinguish different types of sets of choices (alternatives) from on another. But I can't think of what those different types might be -- what "foo" would be. > For example, to indicate that the reader is to make a choice among the > steps in the set, you could use <substeps role="alternatives"> (though > IMHO, <substeps role="choice"> might be better). And even though the > default markup implies sequence or ordered steps, you could use a > different value on the same attribute to make the relationship explicit > -- <substeps role="sequence"> or <substeps role="ordered">. > > We could formalize that model by adding to the DTD a Type attribute on > Substeps with an enumerated list of values that includes "choice" (or > "alternatives"), and maybe also include "ordered" and make it the > implied value for the attribute (i.e., any <substeps> element lacking a > Type attribute would be assumed to be <substeps type="ordered">. > > If that doesn't seem adequate, can you explain what the proposed > Alternatives/Branch markup model would provide to users that this > <substeps type="choice">/step model doesn't provide? > > Less confusing and ambiguous for our writers to select markup than to > make sure they set the correct attribute value, I can't see anything ambiguous in <substeps type="choice">. And I think assessing how much "less confusing" a new element may be is subjective. Some writers might find it more confusing to have to decide between two different wrappers for marking up a set of substeps, and easier to think of them as Substeps that happen to have a "choice" relationship. And, regardless, your writers are still selecting markup -- they're just selecting an attribute instead of an element. I think the issue of helping make sure they make that markup selecton correctly is a process/ documentation issue, not a DTD issue. > and we need to be able to make > that selection at the Procedure level...ie alternative as a sibling to Step. Then, I think we would need to consider adding a more generic wrapper for steps at that level, a "Stepset" element (or whatever name). In my opinion, that would be a lot more prudent/forward-looking/extensible than adding a specialized Alternatives wrapper. > The only limitation I can see in substeps/step is that doesn't let you > specify choice among steps at the "root" level of a procedure. (You > could do <procedure type="choice">, but that wouldn't make sense -- it'd > turn the entire procedure into a choice of steps instead of sequence.) > > We have been working on an alternative method of marking up Procedures > in our documentation which eliminates using a role attribute (which has > been a long standing and confusing workaround for writers) There is no > way I could come back to my team with the proposal to use type=choice and > not have vegtables thrown at me (or worse). I sympathize, but I think you'd have to agree that outside of your team, other folks might not judge that to be an especially compelling reason to make a big change to the standard DTD. > (^: I think I have provided enough use case examples to show why > having an Alternatives (or Choice if that is a better name) container > would serve a good purpose for us and other Docbook users. I agree that you've provided some examples that show why adding some "choice" markup would be useful. But I can't agree that you've shown why a specific Alternatives/Choice wrapper would be any better than a generic <substeps type="choice"> and/or Stepset wrapper. > If we believe there's a need to specify choice among steps at that root > level of a procedure instead of just among steps within substeps, then > I'd like to propose that instead of adding an "Alternative" wrapper > element, we generalize the wrapper -- call it, for example, Stepset, and > make "choice" or "alternatives" one of its enumerated values. > > Hey, isn't that a proposal you made some time ago? Yep. :-) > (^: Do you have any real life examples you could post for us to > consider? No, none. > There may be other benefits to having a generalized wrapper for grouping > sets of steps within a procedure. Being able to specify that there's a > "choice" relationship among the steps in the set is just one type of > relationship it would make it possible to express. > > Yes this is true, and I would be interested in exploring your idea a bit more. > Can you please post some use case and examples? No use cases or examples -- just the opinion that if we're going to make the move of adding another wrapper for steps, that we should add it as a generic wrapper -- one that facilitates other kinds of possible future uses that we may not be able to anticipate right now. > Thanks for your good ideas Mike, Thank you for filing the RFE -- I think the "choice" markup, if it ends up being added (and in whatever form it might take), will be a useful enhancement that a lot of users and doc teams will welcome. --Mike
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC