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

[David Cramer <david@thingbag.net>]

I make most or all elements start elements in my DocBook variants because why not? What if you want to xi:include a <phrase> or a <note> multiple times (and find entities to be kludgy and gross)? Put it in a file and xi:include that file as needed. No need for an id or id fixup.  

I also consider making a variant good practice. Nobody needs all of DocBook and changes like adding start elements have little effect on interoperability. 

Regards,
David

Typed wtih thmubs 

> On Nov 29, 2022, at 5:51 PM, Richard Hamilton <hamilton@xmlpress.net> wrote:
> 
> ïIâve 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
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>