Re: [docbook-tc] DocBook Publishers documentation

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@schneider-electric.com> writes:
> I'd like to include some of the verbiage from the specification in the
> Introduction that explains the purpose behind the schema, and a summary of
> what has been added / removed. I can work with you on this if you'd like.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I meant when I said

  >> I'm not sure what the chapters should be for this book. Probably just
  >> an introduction and maybe "what's different".

> I did notice the dcterms:* entry, and agree that we need to figure out how
> to display/reference these better.

Right. We could make a refentry page for each one, but that seemed
like overkill. I should probably just format that list as a table with
the one line description and a link or something.

It appears that the content model for info is "bag of DocBook stuff"
OR "bag of dcterms stuff". No mixing. Is that the intent? (Not that I
think it's successfully articulated because the DocBook stuff allows
*:*.)

> HTML tables were explicitly removed from Publishers, though there is a
> request to add them back in, it is not part of the approved schema.

Ah. Just fumble fingered on my part, I think. Fixed now :-)

Publishers removes informaltable but leaves informalfigure and
informalexample? That's intentional, is it?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Thanks to words, we have been able
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | to rise above the brutes; and
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | thanks to words, we have often
                                   | sunk to the level of the
                                   | demons.--Aldous Huxley

PGP signature