RE: [docbook] Task Markup (delinquent action item)

["HAMILTON,DICK (HP-FtCollins,ex1)" <dick.hamilton@hp.com>]

I'll take a shot at answering this one, which isn't off-base.
A good starting place is the RFE, which contains a justification
from the originators.  This can be found at:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=21935&atid=384107&func=detail&aid=6
21564

(note that the current proposal differs from this RFE, but the
justification is still valid).

In a nutshell, the existing <procedure> markup does not provide
semantic markup for some of the things that are commonly used
when defining procedures (prerequisites, examples, etc.).  To
work around this, writers often put a procedure inside a section
that contains this other information. 

The <task> proposal puts the all of these pieces into a single
container to make it easier for writers to create consistent
procedural markup.  Also, though it's not mentioned in the RFE,
a single, semantically marked up, container should make it easier
to re-use or dynamically deliver this kind of content, because
you can easily find everything that belongs with the procedure.

I hope that helps.

Dick Hamilton
dick.hamilton@hp.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Biss [mailto:jeff@marco-inc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:13 AM
> To: Dave Pawson
> Cc: Norman Walsh; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [docbook] Task Markup (delinquent action item)
> 
> 
> Alright, I may have missed this in previous emails to this list, but 
> what is the difference between the proposed <task> and the existing 
> <procedure>? A task can be presented easily as a procedure, I 
> use this 
> element for this purpose.
> 
> If I am off-base you can tell me to shut up.
> 
> Jeff
>