Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Jeff Biss <jeff@marco-inc.com>]

Pierre,

I am by no means knowledgeable about XML or how it is actually processed
but I see the current number of elements as a distraction to many users who
just want to write a document and then have it transformed so it appears
as desired. As I see it, minimizing the quantity of tags would be a good
thing. The structure of the DocBook at a high level does this, for example:

<!ENTITY % admon.class
        "caution|important|note|tip|warning %local.admon.class;">

Already groups all admonitions into a class. Then each element that is part
of this grouping is further defined as tip is below:

<!ENTITY % tip.element "INCLUDE">
<![%tip.element;[
<!ELEMENT tip %ho; (title?, (%admon.mix;)+)
                      %admon.exclusion;>
<!--end of tip.element-->]]>

<!ENTITY % tip.attlist "INCLUDE">
<![%tip.attlist;[
<!ATTLIST tip
        %common.attrib;
        %admon.role.attrib;
        %local.admon.attrib;
>
<!--end of tip.attlist-->]]>

So I guess my question is why not just produce an <admonition> element
that specifies a particular set of roles that are to be used (for example:
graphics.attrib provides for align=left,right, or center) like admonition.attrib
where role=note, caution, warning, important, tip, hint, etc.? This would
help minimize the actual structure of the DTD or schema but require a writer
to set the role as required. Maybe there is a programmitcal reason that this
cannot be done.

As I stated, this seems moot because there are many documents that already
rely on each individual element and a change like this would require a lot
of work to retag to meet the new DTD/schema.

There are reasons that elements were added to the DTD in the first place.
I don't really see a reason for a <figure> and <simplefigure>
because as I see it the structure could have allowed for zero or one title.
But, because I couldn't write a DTD to save my life, I probably should close
my yap.

Jeff Biss


Pierre Machard wrote:
> 20030530154432.GD2795@twinette.migus.eu.org">
> Hi,
>
> Le jeudi 29 mai 2003 à 18:34 -0500, Jeff Biss a écrit :
> [...]
>
> > For example why have <note>, 
> > <important>, <caution>, <warning>, <tip>? Maybe a single tag could have 
> > been used with the differences being made with role:
> >
> > <attention role=caution> <para>Don't touch that!</para></attention>.
> >
> > The same could have been done with sections: <section>This is just a 
> > section</section> or
> > <section role=numbered>This section gets a number.</section>
> >
> > I know that this is water under the bridge (especially considering the 
> > need to support existing documents), and my not simplify things, but 
> > with my limited experience with DTDs it seems that it may provide some 
> > way of simplifying the structure while allowing the complexity to be 
> > handled through the use of attributes.
> >     
>
> I would like to add a few words about your suggestion. As far as I know,
> a lot of attributes like role=blabla are not always displayed or
> considered.
>
> I kown that this problem depends of the stylesheet, but I believe that a
> lot of docbook's users are not friendly with DSSSL/XSL stylesheets, or
> do not want to learn how to modify stylesheets.
>
> The syntax itself (the DTD) is very comprehensive, the most difficult 
> aspect, is the rendering. Don't you agree with that ?
>
> Cheers,
>