Re: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?

[Jeff Biss <jeff@marco-inc.com>]

Here's my 2 cents:

I see no reason that a procedure should be a child of a paragraph. The 
paragraph immediately preceding a procedure would reference that 
procedure. Why would one need to put a procdure inside a paragraph?

This is clear:

...To install the software perform the following procedure:

1. Insert the installation disk in the drive.
2. Another step

This is not so clear:

...To install the software: 1. Insert the installation disk in the 
drive. 2. Allow the setup program to launch. If it does not launch you....

Placing a procedure within a table doesn't add much but could provide a 
better indication of where the procedure starts and stops because of the 
table's lines. I was forced to do this when working for a customer to 
satisfy their "updated" template for a new "look and feel". The left 
column of each row provided the step number and the right column 
provided the instructions. It could also be done for a single column 
table so that each step is contained within a cell. Providing for a 
procedure within a single column table appears to be rather messy for 
the small visual benefit though.

Jeff Biss



There seems

David Cramer wrote:

>Nested procedures, procedures inside of tables, etc. would be messy--not
>sure how you'd number them. <substeps> allows you to nest procedures
>without that problem. I think no procedures in paras is a good thing.
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 6:43 AM
>To: docbook mailing list
>Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of
>"para"?
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>/ "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> was heard to say:
>|   i just noticed that the procedure element cannot be a child
>| of a para, as can other lists.  any reason for this?  it seems
>| like this would be useful if a procedure should be considered
>| part of its enclosing paragraph.  just curious.
>
>I don't recall consciously deciding to exclude it. File an RFE, I guess.
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
>
>- -- 
>Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Debugging is 99% complete most of
>http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | the time--Fred Brooks, jr.
>Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
>
>
>
>