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

[Carlos Araya <carlos@cvc.edu>]

Robert:

Semantically iot makes perfect sense but it's when converting the docbook to
other formats that a problem is caused. How owuld translate the:

<procedure>
<step>...</step>
</procedure>

Into HTML or PDF?

I tend to agree with a previous posting where they recomended the reverse,

<procedure>
<para>Explanation</para>
<step>Step1</step>
</procedure>

Adding elements to docbook is not just a matter of saying "Let's add this
element" but also of developing the transformation to the formats supported
by the XSL/DSSL stylesheets

My $0.02
--
Carlos E. Araya
WebCT Administrator - Trainer
California Virtual Campus, Region 1
C/O De Anza College
21250 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
(p) 408 257 0482 (f) 408 255 4406
<icq> 5140783  <aim>carlosed1974
web (work): http://www.cvc1.org
web (personal): http://silverwolf-net.net/
Sig:
(7) It is always something
(7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all
three).
from RFC 1925: The Twelve Networking Truths
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
To: "Jeff Biss" <jeff@marco-inc.com>
Cc: "David Cramer" <dcramer@motive.com>; "docbook mailing list"
<docbook@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 09:39
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of
"para"?


> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Jeff Biss wrote:
>
> > So what are you proposing? That an inline procedure element be a child
> > of the paragraph element?
>
> only that a <para> be allowed to have a <procedure> as a child,
> that's all.  i think this has gotten blown way out of proportion
> here.
>
> rday
>
>