[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] FW: [Re: [xml-doc] DocBook 4.3 Task Markup]
After looking at this a bit more, I realize it's not really a matter of treating Task like Sidebar at all. It's a matter of allowing it whererever Refentry is allowed within book components (Chapter, Preface, etc.) -- which is to say, wherever Section is allowed. So we have a kind of precedent in we already have Refentry allowed wherever Section is allowed. (If fact, Refentry is allowed in a place where Section isn't: as a _sibling_ to book components such a Chapter. Not that I'm saying we would want to allow that for Task...) And for the sake of comparison, the DITA model (if I remember correctly), basically has three top-level elements: Concept, Reference, and Task (which are all "specializations" of the fundamental Topic element. I think). So perhaps part of what we need to consider is whether the DocBook Task is a worthy hierarchical parallel to Refentry. --Mike Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org> writes: > I'm forwarding a reply I sent to a question that was posted to the > xml-doc list. Roger Shuttleworth, who posted the question, has > submitted RFE 1097183 for it - > > Allow Task as a sibling of sections > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1097183&group_id=21935&atid=384107 > > When the TC discussed Task back in January 2003, it seems like > there was some thought about allowing it to "float" like Sidebar > and so be a valid sibling of section elements. > > But after that call, there's no record of any decision being made > not to allow that. But it ended up being added to DocBook 4.3 as a > non-floating element like other block elements. > > Does anybody remember whether there was a consensus to make it > that way? If not, it seems like we should discuss it further and > decide whether that's really the way we want it. > > --Mike > > ----- Forwarded message from Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org> ----- > > To: xml-doc@yahoogroups.com > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i > From: Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org> > Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:45:32 +0900 > Subject: Re: [xml-doc] DocBook 4.3 Task Markup > > > Roger Shuttleworth <rshuttleworth@activplant.com> writes: > > > We are using structured FrameMaker and the DocBook 4.3 DTD. This version > > of DocBook includes Task markup, unlike previous versions, which suits > > us well as we have tried to separate conceptual information from > > procedural information. > > [...] > > > However, the 4.3 DTD does not allow a Task after a Sect2. It imposes the > > following order: > > Sect1 > > Sect2 (conceptual) > > Task > > Task > > Sect2 > > Task > > You cannot put a Task after a Sect2 as a sibling. > > > > This mandates that all conceptual information be given first, followed > > by a series of tasks or procedures. No doubt there are very good reasons > > for this, but it would be good to have them articulated. Does this > > structure apply more to some types of technical material (e.g. > > maintenance guides) than others? I am quite willing to be told that this > > is the best way... > > The only record I can find of discussion related to whether not to > allow Task as a sibling of sections is in the January 2003 TC > meeting minutes: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200301/msg00130.html > > Here's an excerpt from that discussion - > > Norm: It would be our first sort-of floating container. Like > sidebar but more general. > > Steve: We look at this like a very special kind of section. The > Task element can appear anywhere that a Sect2 or Sect3 can > appear. We don't allow them at Sect4 or at the top of a chapter. > They behave like any other kind of sections. > > Nancy: So they can't float inside para text. They have to be > siblings to other sections. > > Steve: That's right. It's not like a figure or table, it works > like a section. > > Nancy: So you could have a Sect3 and then a Task and then > another Sect3. > > But at some point between when that discussion and the time when > Task markup was added and released in Docbook 4.3, Task ended up > becoming a non-floating element like other non-section block > elements. > > That may be because the TC explicitly intended for it to be that > way, but the decision didn't get recorded in meeting minutes. Or > it may instead just be an unintentional oversight. > > Anyway, it seems like something the TC needs to discuss. Can you > please file a DocBook RFE requesting it? (That is, "Allow Task as a > sibling of sectioning elements" or however you want to word it. > > The form is at: > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=21935&atid=384107 > > You'll need to have a Sourceforge account/username in order to > submit it. > > If you don't want to hassle with that, I can submit it for you. > But it'd be much better if you did it yourself, and included as > much details as possible about your specific use case and > rationale for changing it. > > --Mike > > ----- End forwarded message -----
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]