[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification of <itemgroup>
Kimber, Eliot wrote: > Kimber, Eliot wrote: > > I think that the description should be extended to include "p" in the > > list that is currently "list item, definition, or parameter definition", > > given that each of these is, logically, a specialization of paragraph > > (even though they aren't necessarily literally specializations of <p>). > > Also, itemgroup doesn't allow itemgroup, which is something of a problem > as well, since it means you can't implement this pattern: Actually, thinking about it more, it seems like it might make more sense to allow <ph> to include anything allowed as a child of <p>. That is, one can argue that <p>Text <fig/> text</p> should be directly replaceable by <p><ph>Text <fig/> Text</ph></p>. In other words, allowing things like <fig> and <ol> as children of para but not as children of children of para seems rather arbitrary and inconsistent as well, at the architecture level. Obviously, for specific applications, you might very well might want to restrict your specializations of <ph> but I don't think the base architecture should do so. But given the exiting design, it's probably inappropriate to drastically relax the content model of <ph>, which again points to providing a new generic wrapper whose content model is the same as <p>. Hmmm. Cheers, Eliot -- W. Eliot Kimber Professional Services Innodata Isogen 8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402 Austin, TX 78759 (214) 954-5198 ekimber@innodata-isogen.com www.innodata-isogen.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]