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

[Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de>]

Hi,

On 30.11.22 00:48, Richard Hamilton wrote:
> 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.

That's possible and probably all okay for your use case. But I think this is a
bit dangerous territory as it isn't suitable as a general practice. It creates
the wrong attitude. ;)

It might be totally okay for a single person if you are working on your own.
However, I don't think it would be okay for a group of writers. I can't say:
"Validation is king. Trust it. But ignore it here." Soon nobody trusts (or
wants) validation anymore.

IMHO, this is not a real technical issue (which could be theoretically solved
by adding <info> to the list of start elements) but I suppose it's more of a
psychological factor. I fear, it would in a way undermine the trust of our
toolchain. Plus it creates some more burden on writers to dissect when to
ignore errors and when not.


> 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.

Yes, technically possible, but still a restriction. Additionally, I'm forced to
add an XPointer expression into the <xi:include> element just to select the
info. Sounds like a detour to me. :)


> Iâm not sure how doable that is with assemblies.

That's why I wrote another post (see "State of topic oriented writing in
DocBook?") which reflects on this part. I hope it's not considered as a raunchy
rant. ;)


--
GruÃ/Regards
  Thomas Schraitle