DOCBOOK: OMITTAG, SHORTTAG, SHORTREF (Re: Including OS Version information on DocBook elements)

[Karl EICHWALDER <ke@gnu.franken.de>]

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

|   OMITTAG and SHORTTAG are only convenient for the author that uses
|   them.  Some other author, less familiar with the DTD is just going
|   to be confused.

Both these features are easy to understand.  To my experience, authors
are upset if they aren't allowed to use these features anymore[1]; I'm
talking about authors coming from quertz/linuxdoc or from HTML (in case
of OMITTAG).  I'm curious how fast XHTML (once approved) will be
accepted; don't take me wrong: I've strong feelings that XHTML will be a
_big_ win for the community[2].

DATATAG and SHORTREF are different animals; SHORTREFs are too clever.
Of course, Adam, you're right: If the author feels comfortable to use
this feature, SGML normalization and sgml-to-xml are not that difficult
:)

___
[1]I want to exclude "unclosed short tags"; those tags are looking
ugly.

[2]I don't know whether the lynx parser is already fixed -- last time I
checked lynx I noticed that it treats the presence of "</p>" in a very
strange manner.  Sometimes it wants a superfluous "<p>" to close(!) a
paragraph (before <pre>)...

-- 
work    : ke@suse.de                          |
        : http://www.suse.de/~ke/             |       ------    ,__o
personal: ke@gnu.franken.de                   |      ------   _-\_<,
        : http://www.franken.de/users/gnu/ke/ |     ------   (*)/'(*)