Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org>]

Jeff Biss <jeff@marco-inc.com> writes:

[...]

> I agree that the number of tags could be reduced if done properly. Maybe 
> this makes more sense if we rely on attributes more for providing 
> information about the intended use. 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 only sense in which that kind of approach would decrease the
complexity of DocBook or any other markup vocabulary is that it would
hinder implementors and authors from doing further open-ended or
unconstrained sub-typing of any unique logical unit (e.g., a tip) that's
modeled as an attribute value instead of as a element.

That is, they could no longer use their own custom attribute values to
specify different types of tips to distinguish them from one another --
e.g., <tip role='hint'> and <tip role='suggestion'> (or whatever).

Otherwise, reducing the total number of existing elements by
substituting them with attribute values does nothing to reduce the
complexity of the vocabulary or make it any easier to learn. The number
of unique logical units that users need to deal with remains the same.

PGP signature