[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] Assemblies, topics, sections and type
Hi Thomas,
I think
a better possibility is to map topic/@type to
section/@otherclass (and setting @class="other") during
assembly. In DocBook 5.2, the @class
attribute is added to section to support legal sections. The
@class attribute already exists on the article element, so
that would work if you map your topics to articles instead of
sections. The topic element does not have an @class
attribute, so there is no conflict there.
I see @type and @class as semantically equivalent for classifying elements. They differ from @role, which I interpret as applying to a specific instance of an element. So an instance of an element can be a member of a class but also carry a specific role for the given output.
The
@class and @otherclass mechanism that is used several times
in the DocBook schema is a bit awkward, but it is designed to
support enumeration of @class, especially through
customization of the schema. That enforcement of enumeration
during authoring is important in some use cases. Other use
cases that don't require such enforcement can use @otherclass
in a looser classification scheme.
Bob Stayton bobs@sagehill.net
Hi, currently, I'm playing around with DocBook assemblies. I've created an assembly file, referenced some modules and a structure. The modules and structure is not really important, but the module. The structure declares to render the <topic> into a <section>. The module contains a <topic> element, but I also used a type attribute. As the TDG says, it "identifies the topic type" I use it to distinguish between a concept, task, or any other types. IMHO, that's a good fit, right? When I start the assembly process with the assembly.xsl stylesheet, the realized document renders the <topic> element into a <section>. So far, so good. However, as the <topic> contained a type attribute, this attribute is passed onto the <section> as well. Unfortunately, type is not allowed on a <section>, so the validation fails. I have some possible scenarios: a) deal with the removal of type inside the assembly file? Would <transforms> be feasible for this task? Or should that be better done outside? b) use a post-processing (XSLT) step and remove the annoying attribute manually? c) allow type in <section>? would require to amend the DocBook schema. d) customize assembly.xsl and remove type? e) anything else? What would you choose? Would like to hear your opinion. Thank you! -- GruÃ/Regards Thomas Schraitle --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]