Re: [docbook] Whatever happened too CSS+XML?

[Noah Slater <nslater@gmail.com>]

> I know this sentence, actually I typed it on the same keyboard as this
> email message ;-)

Wow... don't I feel an idiot! Heh.

> And although you can *technically* place
> XHTML link or image inside DocBook document, it is nonsense because
> DocBook has native elements for links and images. Moreover DocBook
> markup is usually much more powerful and semantically richer then
> similar XHTML markup.

I know... but is it really that wrong to combine the two like this? Is
there no way of conceivably mixing the two in harmony? Perhaps a
<html:a> embedded in a <link> etc? A bit hacky I know - but you don't
loose any semantics.

What would be the harm of using only
<html:table>, <html:img> and <html:a> in replacements of the DocBook
elements in your document to produce a perfectly valid document which
could be rendered by most browsers? Are you *really* loosing a
significant amount of that semantic goodness that is oh-so-important?
While DocBook is more descriptive in many ways (with images for
example) the overall semantics are the same. Does it really matter
which namespace it belongs to in this instance?

--
"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman