Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?

[Kate.Wringe@sybase.com]

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your advice and suggestion
to submit a RFE to the DocBook committee. 

Perhaps my team isn't using formalparas
correctly. Could you explain a bit more as to how they should be used?

We use formalparas for defining/explaining/introducing
a term/option/clause/concept. It's the assumption/restriction that
this can always be done in a 
single para that is forcing us to resort
to other tagging instead (e.g., like just bolding the term inline in a
para, which isn't ideal, or needlessly creating variablelists).

We desire multi-para formalparas (to
embed a definition in the larger topic, but differentiated style). We could
then bring in the formalpara margins by 3 or 4 spaces to differentiate
it from regular paras that follow, etc. :))

Thanks again,
Kate

"Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>

07/25/2009 12:18 PM

To	<Kate.Wringe@sybase.com>
cc	"David Cramer" <dcramer@motive.com>, <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?

Hi Kate,
If you want this to be considered by the
DocBook Technical Committee for inclusion in future versions of DocBook
schemas, please file a RFE on the DocBook SourceForge site:
 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=21935
  (select "RFEs")
 
You must be a member to submit new items.
 
I can tell you that such generic container
elements have been discussed in the past but never adopted.  Be sure
to include all of your arguments and use cases to support your request.
 
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kate.Wringe@sybase.com

To: Dave
Pawson 
Cc: David
Cramer ; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
; Jirka
Kosek ; Scott
Hudson 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 6:17 AM
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