Re: [docbook] Re: DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 20May 2003

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>]

Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:00:27AM +0200, Tobias Reif wrote:
> 
>>Yann Dirson wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>Replacing an sgml-sounding feature with an xml-sounding one does not
>>>really seem appealing to me (esp. given my bias towards sgml ;).
>>
>>Norm wrote: "Yes, we should have added xmltag or renamed sgmltag years ago."
>>The new element could be added and in that case wouldn't replace sgmltag.
>>
>>You would use the "sgml-sounding" element for SGML (and possibly some 
>>XML) stuff, and use the "xml-sounding" element for XML (and possibly 
>>some SGML) stuff.
> 
> Sure, but you only quoted the 1st part of my mail,

I did not mean to omit anything in a way that would skew your intention.
I simply quoted the text I referred to: The topic is not just replacing 
sgmltag, but either replacing it or adding (a) new element(s).

> the purpose of
> which was just to encourage the election of a generic term, as opposed
> to yet another specific one :)

But this is not exclusive.

> What about TROFF, LaTeX, and LOUT markup, to name a few ? 

http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/markup.html
"markup — A string of formatting markup in text that is to be 
represented literally
[...]
Markup contains a string of formatting markup that is to be represented 
literally in the text. The utility of this element is almost wholly 
constrained to books about document formatting tools."

> A clearly
> generic element name in 5.0, maybe with a language/markup/whatever
> attribute to tell the type of markup, would even allow to phase out
> "sgmltag" in 6.0.

Even if there would be one extremely generic element I'd still want one 
XML-specific element (and I'd be OK with sgmltag staying).

Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/