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

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 12:51, Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de> wrote:

> > 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.

I simply don't see how? Docbook is flexible and RNG allows v.easy customization?
If your editor doesn't do what you want, use another tool?


>
>
> > [...]
> >> 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. :)

Sorry, not to me. Never used xpointer  for such.
Unsure why you need to link into the 'external' info section, especially the way
you say you want to use it?




> >
> > 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.

But you can with one line of rng?


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

Which sounds like the schema is the problem?


>
>
> > 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. :-)

Validation is a tool to use for your own workflow.

>
> 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.

For many of us (me included) it is for the better. I took the work the group did
and adapted it for my use? Sounds like you could do the same and are quite
resistant to such adaptation?

regards




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.