[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
On 29 April 2016 at 07:56, Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de> wrote: > > Although @role would be probably one solution, in that case I favor to > extend the schema. I propose to allow <danger> for the following > reasons: > > * There is a need > * Matches well with ANSI Z535 standard > * It's consistent with the other admonition elements > * Aligns well with DITA if someone has to transform documents back > and forth > * From a language perspective, <danger> expresses a higher risk of > injury and/or death than <caution> (or any other admonition elements). > (Maybe not useful for software documentation, but DocBook can also be > used in other industries where this is very much needed.) > > > Does it make sense to open an RFE? That way the committee can discuss > this in one of the next meetings? Based on this thread, ask the committee, seems like a worthwhile RFE with a solid user requirement. Longer term, Bobs idea of bringing it into line might be worthwhile putting in the parking lot for rev n+1? regards
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]