[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] Re: Equations and figures as descendants of an example
On 10/12/13 15:57, Norman Walsh wrote:
Erik Leunissen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:I've construed a docbook 5.0 xml document whose structure appears to be invalid because it holds <equation>'s and <figure>'s as descendants of an <example>. - I'm curious about the rationale regarding this being invalid.I think, generally speaking, it would be unsual to see a titled figure nested inside a titled example. How, for example, would you label such a figure?
First off: I feel a bit uncomfortable that I don't quite grasp the reason that you asking these questions. Maybe there is an implicit misunderstanding. I'm going to try to be explicit ...
I didn't think of anything different at all for the label than those of other figures in the document. I don't see why I would want that to be different.
What's your motivation for putting figures and equations inside an example?
I've got the feeling that asking for a motivation is like turning the world upside down. Have you never seen a theoretical exposition in a textbook that clarifies it's theory with an example, where a figure is used (regardless titles, regardless figure labels)?
Before I continue, I'd like to check whether there is anything wrong with my understanding. Maybe it's the case that you mean something quite different with an <example> than I do?
Best regards, Erik Leunissen.
Be seeing you, norm