Subject: Re: [docbook] any semantic diff between a file name and directoryname?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In DocBook this would be <filename> v. <filename class="directory"> (where the class attr can be devicefile, directory, extension, headerfile, libraryfile, partition, orsymlink). Whether it's worth the trouble depends on 1) how much trouble it is and 2) what you plan to do with the information. Personally, I've never used that distinction when processing, but you could imagine a situation where, say, a back-of-the-book index is being generated automatically. Maybe you want to generate a primary index entry of "file extensions" and populate it with secondary index entries for all the file name extensions used in the document. I've done things like that with <database class="table"> in a schema reference where I did automatic index generation and hyperlinking based on <database> elements in the doc. The wysioo editors I've used (Oxygen, XMetaL) allow you to add items to the element list so that to the user a "filename directory" item appears which inserts the desired markup, so the writer doesn't have to do the work of adding an element AND an attribute. David On 07/06/2011 07:36 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > (not strictly a docbook question but i'm interested in the opinion of > the gurus here.) > > i'm perusing the semantic markup of someone who has created their own > XML language which, in all, looks fairly similar to docbook, but this > person has explicitly defined two elements -- "file-name" and > "directory-name" -- to be used for that respective markup. > > i'm aware that docbook has the standard "filename" element and, as a > longtime unix/linux user, i'm well aware that directories are simply > special cases of files and i have always marked up directory names with > just <filename>. > > so ... would there be any compelling reason to distinguish between the > two? i don't have access to the XSLT so i don't know if they're really > being treated differently and, visually at least, they're both just > being rendered in identical monospaced font when i generate the HTML. > > thoughts? > > rday > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org > For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOFFzFAAoJEMHeSXG7afUhfIUIAJ/GyvuAtFQ8AOh8jJwq8Lch zGMWA01VJdJP8WEt+fZDKeDbabkYInZol8J/0FtfZO0JDDt3n5t8iudiYo18HcYB ubH89Xa6zeM/AKsJLukoo2kvPLXeS+bbwFy7DZYN1f8UvbcHaX6GfIigkP2SfEoe f5bKfpm+b7g6kIKbzkv5b4tHVfowvY13zRVpZGDSsb9VPUfu/qC1bzanh4fqgK/j 2jID0TxhcbE0Nsk4syUBXzSQJQloWlNKbT8YNegjTFUavpw+Dtnhbo+i+jnjm6zl A3xBvlt5xldMSlZlrHD4qGBwQeCi7MOuCRQA6WnVXpv2DPYF4BoMDyQXZQ6Ilu0= =kobV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----