Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Markup for exercises

[Dave Pawson <dpawson@nildram.co.uk>]

At 15:45 16/10/2002, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
>* Norman Walsh; <ndw@nwalsh.com> on 16 Oct, 2002 wrote:
>>I'm personally quite unhappy with this proposal as it's written. It
>
>me too with what I see below :-)
>
>>adds five fairly general sounding element names (setup, scenario,
>>task, objective, and solution) in a fairly narrow context. Experience
>>suggests that this is too specific; it will work for some people, but
>>it will spawn frequent requests for more flexibility and new
>>special-purpose elements.
>
>Objective in my opionion is a higher level element. 
><module>
><moduleinfo>
><title></title>
><objective>
>       <orderedlist>
>       <listitem> </listitem>
>        <listitem> </listitem>
>       <</orderedlist>
></moduleinfo>
>.....
>
><exercise>
>   <exerciseinfo>...</exerciseinfo>
>   <exercisesection><title>Setup</title>...
>   <exercisesection><title>Scenario</title>...
>   <exercisesection><title>Task</title>
>      <exercisesection><title>Solution</title>
></exercise>
></module>
>
>How this sound to you ?

Agree with Norm about exercisesection being quite a mouthful,
Either his generic section,
or is there a policy on abbreviating?
  <exsection> Too short?
   <exersection> then?
regards Davep






>-- 
>
>Togan Muftuoglu