[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: equations [was: formal objects in docbook 5]
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca> was heard to say: > | docbook uses the term 'formal object' (or short 'formal') in a number > | of places to demark some elements. I couldn't find any clear definition > | of what it means for an element to be 'formal', other than that it has > | a title. > > That's all it means. > > | I then ran the first question of 'Some Open Questions' in > http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook: > | > | "Is the distinction between formal/informal useful anymore?" > | > | What is the answer to this question in the context of the upcoming > | docbook 5 schema ? > > DocBook NG still has both the formal and informal versions. > > The odd man out in all this is equation which, for backwards > compatibility reasons in DocBook *4* still has an *optional* title, > even though there's also an informalequation element. I see two > possible ways forward: > > 1. Keep the formal/informal distinction and make title on equation > required. (This is what I've actually done in DocBook NG.) > > 2. Drop the distinction, drop informal{equation,table,example,figure} > and make title on all those elements optional. > > Option 1 is probably easier for users and for tools, so I'm inclined > to go that way at the moment. The only advantage to option 2, really, > is that DocBook becomes four elements smaller. But the semantic > disjunction is probably too high a price to pay. For the record, even though many equations do actually have names, in the scientific literature I think you will find exactly zero instances of titles on equations (for that matter there would be no TOC equation lists iether). For this reason IMHO option 1 would actually be a backwards step hindering the adoption of DocBook amongst a broader community. Customarily equation blocks fall into two classes, these being numerically labelled and unlabelled equations. The existing equation and informalequation elements provide a useful method for distinguishing between those cases and my hope is that they could be retained. Its a shame there isn't a third option: 3. The equation element be shifted out from the formal list into a group of its own, because in reality it has a completely different usage model. Alternatively, if option 2 was adopted could some other standardised means be established to discriminate between labelled and unlabelled equation blocks? $0.02 Doug
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]