Re: [docbook] Re: Equations and figures as descendants of an example

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

On 10/12/13 17:58, Norman Walsh wrote:
snip

> Part of our miscommunication may be a question of perspective. I tend
> to think of figure, table, example, and equation as all members of a
> class of thing (which we call "formal" objects because they have a
> title).
>
> So I see "allow figure in example" as naturally leading to "allow
> figure in table" and "allow table in equation". Historically, DocBook
> has not allowed "formal objects" to nest.

My view is slightly different?
I see example as marginally higher in level? I'm talking about subject X
and want to show an example of it.

para blah blah blah, see example 1

example
   title
   image

this is where I agree with Norm.
If I see

example
   title
   figure
    title
      image / svg etc

then I don't want to duplicate the title for both example and figure.



> However, they aren't really all exactly uniform. For even more distant
> historical reasons, the title on equation is optional. And I can see
> that "example" can easily be taken as broader than figure, table, or
> equation.
>
> That said, this still feels a bit weird to me:
>
> <example>
>    <title>Example of something</title>
>
>    <para>Some prose.</para>
>
>    <figure>
>      <title>Figure title</title>
>      <mediaobject>...</mediaobject>
>    </figure>
> </example>


which (sort of) supports my idea of example containing (non - titled)
figures/tables/....

I personally never did understand formal vs informal... or it never
made sense to me?





regards

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