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

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Carlos Araya wrote:

> 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


i'm just baffled by all of this.  as it stands, a <para> is allowed to
contain, as an immediate child element, an <itemizedlist> or an 
<orderedlist> or a <variablelist> or a <simplelist> or a 
<segmentedlist>.

what is the difficulty in suggesting that it be able to similarly
contain a <procedure>, which is, in effect, just another kind of list?

and how does this make rendering any more difficult?  am i just
completely misunderstanding something here?

rday