[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Why no MAP/SHORTREFs in DocBook?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Norman Walsh wrote: > / Trevor Jenkins <trevor@suneidesis.com> was heard to say: > | In using the DocBook DTD in anger recently I've found it very > > In anger? As opposed to my theoretical knowledge of it. Easy to miss such elementary requirements when one's only necessity is to be aware of DocBook. > | inconvenient that there is no use of the MAP feature or at the least > | hooks, by which I mean parameter entity declarations, so the user can > | define them themselves. The sort of thing I'd expected to be part of > | DocBook was for &RS;&RE; sequences to be interpreted as occurences of a > | para start tag. Even having those sequences defined as maps belonging to > | para, simplepara, or formalpara so that a sequence of theses elements > | are be marked-up with little effort on my part would be an advance. > > You can easily construct a customization layer that adds the > appropriate declarations, if you really want to support this in your > environment. Except that I then have to document that layer rather than just using your own book. :-) > All of my experience with minimization lead me inexorably to the > conclusion that minimization was a painful impediment to interchange > and understandability. If it's an impediment to interchange then there's something seriously wrong with SGML! :-| That a user might get confused with some instances of it I would agree but then not all users have our experiece or level of comfort with SGML. :-) Regards, Trevor British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living language. Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now! -- <>< Re: deemed!
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC