Re: [docbook] Re: Equations and figures as descendants of an example

[Erik Leunissen <e.leunissen@hccnet.nl>]

On 10/12/13 15:57, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Erik Leunissen <e.leunissen@hccnet.nl> writes:
> > I've construed a docbook 5.0 xml document whose structure appears to
> > be invalid because it holds <equation>'s and <figure>'s as descendants
> > of an <example>.
> >
> > - I'm curious about the rationale regarding this being invalid.
>
> I think, generally speaking, it would be unsual to see a titled figure
> nested inside a titled example. How, for example, would you label such
> a figure?

First off: I feel a bit uncomfortable that I don't quite grasp the 
reason that you asking these questions. Maybe there is an implicit 
misunderstanding. I'm going to try to be explicit ...

I didn't think of anything different at all for the label than those of 
other figures in the document. I don't see why I would want that to be 
different.


> What's your motivation for putting figures and equations inside an
> example?

I've got the feeling that asking for a motivation is like turning the 
world upside down. Have you never seen a theoretical exposition in a 
textbook that clarifies it's theory with an example, where a figure is 
used (regardless titles, regardless figure labels)?

Before I continue, I'd like to check whether there is anything wrong 
with my understanding. Maybe it's the case that you mean something quite 
different with an <example> than I do?

Best regards,

Erik Leunissen.


>                                          Be seeing you,
>                                            norm