[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] legalsection versus section in legalnotice
Continuing this discussion in preparation for our meeting on Wednesday, Larry had the last word on this after heard from everyone including Norm.
In Larry's new model, legalnotice remains confined to info, and legalsection is the element that would appear in normal content.Â They would have the same content model, except legalsection could contain nested legalsections at its end.
I think this accomodates the requirements and is easier to understand, as Larry says.
Norm asked about formatting issues like enumeration, and I think legalsection should be treated as all other members of the section class by default.Â Someone could always customize that if they want something different.
only thing I want to do is review the content model of
legalnotice to be sure it can serve as both legalnotice and
Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises firstname.lastname@example.org
On 12/11/2018 7:10 AM, Rowland, Larry wrote:
Interesting discussion. Good to hear from Norm. Something that occurred to me recently is a model that adds a legalsection that has the same content as a legalnotice (including legalsections). This would accommodate the increased complexity of content that some legal notices are starting to need. Then, if legalsection is allowed anywhere that a section (or simplesect -- I hadn't thought of that) is allowed, it would be easier to understand than intermixing legalnotices with sections and would follow the same rules as sections about intermixing with other content. This would be to accommodate situations like those documents that combine lots of open source licenses to meet licensing requirements for all of the open source components that are included in a deliverable. I think mixing legalnotice with section would be harder to understand than mixing legalsections with sections. Regards, Larry Rowland -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 4:13 AM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] legalsection versus section in legalnotice Bob Stayton <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:Thanks for your quick responses. If we are going to allow legalnotice outside of info, then we have do settle what class of element it will be so we can determine how it fits into other content models.My two cents from the peanut gallery: Iâd add it to db.nopara.blocks. Possibly by creating a new pattern, maybe âdb.notice.blocksâ or something. It strikes me as *almost* being a candidate for putting in admonitions. But a new pattern is probably best.Most of our elements can be classified as hierarchical, block, or inline. The current legalnotice would be considered a block element and could appear anywhere within a section alongside tables and paras and figures. If a new legalnotice contains sections, doesn't that make it a kind of section itself? That is, could you put a legalnotice in the middle of a section, add subsections to it, and continue with block content after the legalnotice closing tag? We don't allow block content after a regular section.Yeah. Iâd be really reluctant to allow section in legalnotice for just that reason. (If the TC decides to allow section in legalnotice which is a block like thing, then itâs worth revisiting if section should be allowed in other blocks, like sidebar, I expect.) The bridgehead element can always be used to simulate a title; all youâd be missing is truly nested hiearchy and I wonder if thatâs justifiably necessary.Perhaps if it is going to be in content, then we should just call it legalsection, and allow it as another flavor of section wherever section is allowed? It could contain nested legalsections as needed.That wouldnât be my first choice, but I suppose it could be made to work. Lots of complicated questions with no obviously right answers, such as, how would one expect them to be enumerated? And the question of where does it fit into the sect1 vs section vs simplesect hierarchy arises. Iâd be tempted to make it behave like simplesect, myself. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <email@example.com> | To think is not enough; you must think http://nwalsh.com/ | of something.--Jules Renard