docbook message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?
- From: Kate.Wringe@sybase.com
- To: "Rowland, Larry" <larry.rowland@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:02:31 -0400
As it stands today, there is a
usability problem with formalparas--the reader is forced to figure out
if the paragraph that follows a formalpara belongs to the formalpara or
not.
The processing instructions (http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/formalpara.html)
for formalpara do not suggest that formalparas should be visually set apart
(e.g., indented, etc.,) from other paras in the output.
Although it is quite clear that run-in
title and para that immediately follows the title belong together, there
is nothing to suggest how to interpret the following paras (and other elements).
The reader (and the writer) must figure
out whether or not the paras following formalparas belong to the
formalpara or not. This problem exists even if the writer uses formalparas
"properly" and does not intend the paras following the formalpara
to belong to the formalpara.
Kate
"Rowland, Larry"
<larry.rowland@hp.com>
07/24/2009 04:48 PM
|
To
| David Cramer <dcramer@motive.com>,
"Kate.Wringe@sybase.com" <Kate.Wringe@sybase.com>, Dave
Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
|
cc
| "docbook@lists.oasis-open.org"
<docbook@lists.oasis-open.org>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>,
Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>
|
Subject
| RE: [docbook] Why do formalparas only
allow one para? |
|
David,
That can be dependent
on the transforms. Our transforms use an inline, run-in header (as
mentioned by Kate in her message) of bold text that is at the beginning
of the first line of the para (delimited by a period at the end of the
title if no other punctuation is provided). This is quite effective
since there is no question what content is associated with the title; it
is part of the paragraph. However, a second paragraph would no longer
have that visual association. I believe that currently both PDF and
HTML DocBook transforms format it that way.
Best Regards,
Larry
From: David Cramer [mailto:dcramer@motive.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Rowland, Larry; Kate.Wringe@sybase.com; Dave Pawson
Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org; Jirka Kosek; Scott Hudson
Subject: RE: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?
Larry,
Are you saying that the current
presentation of formalpara is flawed in that it does not make it clear
that content following a formalpara is not part of the formalpara?
David
From: Rowland, Larry [mailto:larry.rowland@hp.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:09 PM
To: David Cramer; Kate.Wringe@sybase.com; Dave Pawson
Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org; Jirka Kosek; Scott Hudson
Subject: RE: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?
Kate,
There are actually usability
reasons for the formalpara not allowing multiple paras. If I have two paras
in a formalpara immediately followed by a para not associated with the
two paras, how do I tell that the third para is not part of the two-para
formalpara? This is also why DocBook does not allow paras to follow a section
-- how do you tell the section has ended.
I understand the frustration,
and have dealt with the problem in the past by using variablelists (as
you described), by using lists within the para for enumeration of the content
items, and by redesigning the content to use sections when appropriate,
because they all provide a method for the reader to determine that I have
finished the formal element. Part of designing solutions that circumvent
DocBook's structure is to make sure the reader can tell what the author
intended, since the reader frequently does not have access to the markup
that shows the containment relationship, and the format of the output is
all that the reader has available. The current render of a formalpara does
not provide any indication after the para that the formalpara has ended.
If you do modify the DTD, I would recommend adding some sort of obvious
marker following the last element of the formalpara to indicate it has
ended. The reason I say last element is that once you open up the
question of more than one para, you also have to deal with the question
of what else is legal inside the new thing you have created? How
about lists, figures, mediaobjects, and all the other block level elements?
I sympathize with the problem,
since I have struggled with it in the past, but please make sure the reader
can tell what the writer intended -- that has always been a goal in my
development of transforms and grammars that feed them. Coming up with new
designs for markup is pretty easy, making sure they can effectively communicate
the author's intent is much harder since the reader does not usually have
access to the markup, just a formatted page (or audio stream or whatever
the markup controls -- Markup, it's not just for text anymore!).
Best Regards,
Larry Rowland
From: David Cramer [mailto:dcramer@motive.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:51 AM
To: Kate.Wringe@sybase.com; Dave Pawson
Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org; Jirka Kosek; Scott Hudson
Subject: RE: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?
Kate,
One option is to customize the
DocBook DTD or schema. I happen to have this handy because I did this already
for our version of DocBook. In this case, you'd create your own sybasebook.dtd
variant of the DocBook DTD containing the following:
<!ENTITY % docbook PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD
DocBook XML V4.5//EN"
"path_to/4.5/docbookx.dtd">
%docbook;
<!ELEMENT formalpara (title,
(%ndxterm.class;)*, para+ )>
<!-- End -->
The current DocBook xslts will
probably render the formalparas with multiple paras just fine, however
you could also have a preprocessing step that terms them back into legal
DocBook formalparas before passing the doc on to the DocBook xsls.
Longer term, you could submit
an RFE or look at the topic element that Scott mentioned (I'm not current
on that discussion).
David
From: Kate.Wringe@sybase.com [mailto:Kate.Wringe@sybase.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:17 AM
To: Dave Pawson
Cc: David Cramer; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org; Jirka Kosek; Scott
Hudson
Subject: Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?
What we need is a free-floating container element that takes a title and
allows other block elements (e.g, indexterms, paras, lists, etc.,) within
it.
We want a container element because it is useful for reuse and relocation
of content. We want the element to be free-floating because we need to
be able
to put the element anywhere and have other content elements follow it (including
itself).
The problem with bridgeheads is that they are just titles and you can't
show the relationship between the title and the content that follows it.
To xinclude you'd have
xinclude the bridgehead as well as each element that follows. We would
prefer to have one container element that you could put an ID on and be
able to conditionalize it and/or xinclude it.
We actually have two cases where we need free-floating container elements
with titles:
1) One where the title is not inline -- this element would be akin to simplesect
if simplesect was not non-floating.
2) One where the title is inline -- this element would be akin to
formalpara if formalpara allowed you to have more than one para and allowed
other block elements.
Currently for 1) we use sidebars instead of bridgeheads because we needed
a sub-section-level container element with a title, that could be used
anywhere and multiple times within a section.
Simplesect, because it is non-floating, did not meet our requirements.
We are looking for a solution for 2) because formalparas do not meet our
needs, but they are the best alternative we have right now.
Thanks again,
Kate
Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
07/24/2009 12:25 AM
|
To
| David Cramer <dcramer@motive.com>
|
cc
| Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>,
Kate.Wringe@sybase.com, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Subject
| Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas only
allow one para? |
|
Why not use a bridgehead and multiple paras?
formalpara is singular? Hence one para?
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]