Re: [docbook] An <appendix> that contains only a <glossary> is not valid (db5_rc7)

["Francesco Pretto" <ceztkoml@gmail.com>]

2008/1/16, Danny Busch <danny@kurbel.net>:
> Francesco Pretto schrieb:
> > 1) if there's a strong opinion that semantically it does have sense to
> > have a glossary inside an appendix, just permit to be the only element
> > of it;
> > 2) otherwise, just forbid it (and probably even forbid bibliography,
> > index and toc to be part of an appendix).
> >
> There are a lot of books that contain TOCs within Bibliography or
> Glossarys within normal Chapters. So, the more "recursion" docbook
> allows, the better is the flexibility to model the books that are
> around. Especially items from science (jurisprudence, and others) with
> thousands of footnotes and glossary items need to be structured in a
> fine granular manner.
>

So that's fine! Just seen now that <revhistory> can be the only
element of an appendix, so it's clearer to me that this treatment
disparity of elements like glossary, toc, index does not have enough
reasons to subsist. Is there an opinion here to ask for the
specification to permit <bibliography>, <index>, <glossary>, <toc> to
be the only element of <appendix>?
Interesting enough, it would not break anything! :-D

Francesco