Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] A first stab at documenting assemblies
Scott Hudson <email@example.com> writes: > I think this has been very helpful, and shows the potential assemblies > in increasing orders of complexity in a user-friendly manner. I think > there is a typo in the 2nd para of 5. Example Assembling an Online > Book. "but it will be in the long run" should be "but it will be > better in the long run". Right. > I'd like to include an example of adding the relationships to your > last example. Perhaps something like this: > > <relationship type="troubleshooting"> > <instance resourceref="tut3"/> > <instance resourceref="tut5"/> > <instance resourceref="task4"/> > <instance resourceref="task3"/> > </relationship> > > <relationship type="widget"> [...] > </relationship> > > <relationship type="tutorial"> [...] > </relationship> > > <relationship type="task"> [...] > </relationship> Ok, but what are the processing expectations of these elements? What does the processor do with them? At a high level, the model I've documented so far starts with a collection of resources and an assembly document. The assembly document describes how a set of resources is composed (and possibly transformed) into a new structure. Do relationship elements fit into that model? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <firstname.lastname@example.org> | I have animal magnetism. When I go http://nwalsh.com/ | outside, squirrels stick to my clothes.