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

[Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de>]

Hi Dave,

On 30.11.22 12:00, Dave Pawson wrote:
> [...]
>
> Or a burden on writers to take care what markup they use?
> Sounds reasonable?

To some degree, yes. Especially if you have to deal with incorporating parts of
a XML file, referencing etc.


> Your info 'root', I don't see how reasonable use would invalidate
> the use case (multiple) imports into n documents?

Sure it can work. However, if I load a file with <info> as root, my XML editor
_will_ complain. To avoid it, I'm forced to either a) make a DocBook
customization and allow <info>, or b) wrap artificial structural DocBook
elements around. Both are problematic in their own ways as I was trying to explain.


> [...]
> > 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. :)
>
> No, sounds like you making use of xinclude and docbook for your own purposes?
> Something many of us do and have done for a long time.

XIncludes aren't the problem per se. Maybe it works for your documents. I'm
glad it works for you. But not all documents are the same. If we can't use
<info> as root, we are forced to do all sorts of workarounds. Perhaps it was
always the case.

However, in terms of topic-oriented writing, it becomes annoying when you are
restricted by the schema.


> I'm not sure psychological 'barriers' are other than local use constraints?

What I'm trying to say is, if we sell validation as sacred and as a good thing,
we can't undermine this by allowing errors in another part, can we? Call it
constraints, psychological barriers, or whatever you like. :-)

Probably it boils down to that DocBook allows many ways to process it. Some
produce valid results other invalid intermediate results or something in
between. DocBook doesn't define one way to do it, for the better or worse.


--
GruÃ/Regards
  Thomas Schraitle