Re: [docbook] RDFa Lite inside <info>

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 at 10:00, Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> But that doesnât answer your general question.
>
> > However, that feels like abusing the <annotation> element.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> > Maybe DocBook needs a general <meta> element soley for  information that
> > goes beyond the usual markup? Which could be used to distinguish between
> > DocBook's own meta information and a foreign framework. Something like
> > this:
>
> DocBook 5.2 introduces such an element which can either contain content
> or be empty:
>
>   https://tdg.docbook.org/tdg/5.2/meta.content.html
>   https://tdg.docbook.org/tdg/5.2/meta.empty.html
>
> Itâs perhaps geared a little too strongly towards the HTML style of meta
> element. It could probably be relaxed a little bit, so that name was
> optional for example, to make it fit this use case a little better.


Jon Udell and friends  presented at https://iannotate.org/2021/

From which  I took a much more general meaning of annotations.
For me, Thomas idea of using annotations within that wider definition
makes sense.

regards


--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.