Re: [docbook] RFE #1998852: Provide a mechanism to group parameters.

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

Norman Walsh wrote:
> The DocBook TC is considering solutions to RFC 1998852 which asks
> for a mechanism to group method parameters.
> 
> Instead of creating new elements for this purpose, it was suggested
> that we already have a group element that we could use for this
> purpose. (It already serves an analagous role in grouping arguments in
> a cmdsynopsis.)
> 
> The results can be seen in this experimental customization layer:


> 
> And its accompanying test document:


> </article>
> 
> This seems a perfectly tractable answer, but its worth noting that
> this would be the first case of an element with two distinct,
> unrelated content models. (We already use multiple patterns for the
> same element to handle validation of some attribute co-constraints,
> but those are much more closely related, or at least they feel that
> way to me.)
> 
> Does anyone think that this would be confusing?
> 
> Technically, there is no way to represent this in DTD syntax and,
> though it could be represented in XSD, our current method of
> generating the XSD would not be able to cope. But I'm inclined to
> think that we shouldn't feel constrained by the limitations of DTDs
> and perhaps we need to build a better XSD in any event.

rng wise looks good. I don't feel any antipathy towards overloading
the group element. Common purpose even if a different 'place' in the 
schema.

Am I right in thinking that so far, we've been OK with 'backwards'
translation to both DTD and xsd?

I'm a little more than 50% supportive of retaining that
ability, sensing that people happily quote that docbook works
with XSD.

I shan't shout if you go with this solution, just a little
concerned that some users (those locked into W3C/MS worlds) who
are xsd bound might hurt if this breaks that assumption?

"perhaps we need to build a better XSD in any event"
Does that mean something other than Jing to go from .rng to .xsd?

regards



regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk