[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: New element for Step alternatives?
At 16:20 2002 09 18 -0400, Sabine Ocker - Sun Microsystems wrote: >Paul- >Not all the occurances of Alternative contain the "if" action branching... >the first example I provided in my reponse to Dave Pawson from the >"To Change the Alignment of the Table" procedure has multiple options >to choose from, a series of "to do {whatever}" alternatives. > >We want to have distinct markup to use when we have a "choice" of actions, >rather than a series of actions. > >There is still alot we can do which is useful with even this half way >utilization of if-ness. > >Using Role=branch wouldn't work for us. I hear you saying that, but I don't see you explaining that. Certainly, I could write stylesheets (or, if I couldn't, Norm could) that trigger on the role=branch attribute as well as on a <branch> element. If role=branch doesn't work for you, then what about adding the <alternatives> element, but leaving the elements within it steps? That makes the "choosing" semantic clear and reflects that fact that the individual things within alternatives are really the same as the individual things within "sequences" (which are implicit within procedures). If reflects that fact that a step is a step, and whether you follow up with the next step or some other step is indicated by the wrapper. paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC