[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Am I using DocBook appropriately?
John > From a casual overview, it looks good. Thank you very much for your review. > I'm impressed with the > thoroughness of your glossary; I always run out of patience when > trying to create and maintain one. :) I do it because my XSLTs fetch the expansion of each acronym. > The use of simpara is interesting. I haven't seen it used much, > and never use it myself. I don't think it matters much; I'd be > curious to hear why it was added to DocBook in the first place. tdg-en-html-2.0.7/tdg/en/html/simpara.html "simpara — A paragraph that contains only text and inline markup, no block elements" tdg-en-html-2.0.7/tdg/en/html/para.html "A Para is a paragraph. Paragraphs in DocBook may contain almost all inlines and most block elements." So for simple paragraphs I use simpara, and for paragraphs containing block level elements I use para. Another strategy would be to use only para, but I like simpara=>p for text browsers and older browsers. (simpara can be translated to (X)HTML p, but para elements containing block elements can not (AFAICS), and can be translated to (X)HTML div.) > I think numbered sections (like sect1) aren't as common now as > they once were, with nested sections being used more, but that's > just an impression I have. I don't know how accurate it is. I see; I could simply use section elements and none of sect[1-5]. Thanks again for your review, Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC