Re: DOCBOOK: docbook vs latex

["Matt G." <matt_g_@hotmail.com>]

>From: Doug du Boulay <ddb@R3401.rlem.titech.ac.jp>
>To: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: docbook vs latex
>Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:03:22 +0900
>
>the <mml:math> tag cleanly separates the actual mathematics from
>the surrounding paragraph information. Contrast that with the
>relegation of maththeorem to a perverted  mml: module like this
>
><mml:math>
><mml:maththeorem>
><mml:title>
><mml:para>
><mml:inlineequation>
>       <mml:apply><mml:divide/></mml:apply>
></mml:inlineequation>
></mml:para>
></mml:title>
></mml:maththeorem>
></mml:math>

Well, I honestly don't know if MathML provides the document-level blocks 
that would be needed (you might need a separate module, for that).  However 
it certainly shouldn't be polluted with things like title, para, 
inlineequation, etc.  The standard DocBook versions of those elements should 
be used.

Furthermore, what's needed is a schema language (sorry, I don't know 
anything about the W3C XML Schema Language) in which a module can allow 
specific *classes* of the standard DocBook elements within the content 
models of the elements it provides.  While cases like 'title' and 'para' 
would best be addressed explicitly, a module should be able to implicitly 
add its own elements to the content models of elements provided by other 
modules (by appending them to some sort of class).  Similarly, it should be 
able to selectively contribute its elements for use in both specific docbook 
elements and classes of elements, but also in unknown elements provided by 
other modules.


(from a subsequent message):

>I guess Matt's last email and this message from the archives pretty well 
>hits the nail on the head:
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200202/msg00087.html

Sugoi desu - thanks for digging that up!  Domo arigatou gozaimasu.


Matt Gruenke


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com