Re: [docbook] Allow <info> as root element?

[Richard Hamilton <hamilton@xmlpress.net>]

Iâve run into the same thing. I have a separate file for our book info, so that I can move the copyright page to the back of the book for ebooks.

I am lazy, however, and just ignore the errors when Iâm editing the info page:-). I essentially do what Norm mentioned; that is, only pay attention to validation when the block is included in a book.

The other thing you could do, if youâre using xinclude, is to put the info block into a valid root element, so you can validate it, then use xinclude to include just the info element when you build a deliverable.

Iâm not sure how doable that is with assemblies.

Dick Hamilton
-------
XML Press
XML for Technical Communicators
http://xmlpress.net
hamilton@xmlpress.net



> On Nov 29, 2022, at 14:03, Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 28.11.22 11:10, Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote:
>>> currently, DocBook v5.2 (and previous versions) allows several elements as root
>>> element. However, it is currently not possible to use info "alone". Any reasons
>>> why?
>> 
>> I can see how reusing metadata might make sense in some environments. I
>> wonât speak for anyone else on the TC, but I tend to think of it as
>> being attached to something. It provides metadata for an element, and so
>> itâs not immediately obvious what it means sitting on its own.
>> 
>> It isnât that I thought there was any reason to forbid it so much as it
>> never occurred to me that it would be useful.
> 
> I know, this use case may be not very common. Still I think, if you use
> assemblies and share content it might become more helpful, especially when you
> want (or need to) validate on its own.
> 
> 
>>> Imagine you would like to share some common meta information among several
>>> articles:
>> 
>> Thereâs obviously nothing that prevents you from doing this. You can
>> XInclude this metadata file into several articles and then validate
>> them.
>> 
>> It would be a very simple Relax-NG customization to allow info in the
>> âstartâ pattern then it could be validated independently.
> 
> That's true, but that wouldn't be DocBook anymore. ;) Thus validating wouldn't
> work.
> 
> 
> --
> 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
>