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

[Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de>]

Hi,

On 30.11.22 14:05, Dave Pawson wrote:
> > 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?

That's not the point. It's not about my XML editor, it's about the DocBook
schema that doesn't allow <info> as possible root element.

If I use the standard DocBook (without customization) I have the limitation
described above.


> > > [...]
> > > > 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?

See, you also agree it would be cumbersome. ;)

Let's assume I want to share an <info> element between different articles. We
use standard DocBook.

As standard DocBook doesn't allow <info> as root, I have to wrap some
artificial element around my <info>. Could be basically anything that is
possible as start element. Maybe we use <topic>:

-----[ metadata.xml ]
<topic>
   <title>...</title>
   <info xml:id="metadata">
     <!-- my metainformation that I want to share between my articles -->
   </info>
</topic>
-----

In my real articles, I have to link to this artificial article.

-----
<article>
  <title>...</title>
  <xi:include href="metadata.xml" xpointer="metadata"/>
</article>
-----

Sure, if I remove the artificial <topic>, we could avoid this xpointer
attribute. However, that would render my metadata.xml in my XML editor as invalid.


> > 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?

If you customize it, it's not DocBook anymore. :)

I've described a solution in another mail to Norm. Perhaps it would be needed
to create another, _official_ customization like the Publishers, ITS, and the
others that are offered. This schema could allow <info> as additional root
element. Problem solved, XML editor happy.


> > 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?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. :-)


> Validation is a tool to use for your own workflow.

And...?


> > 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?

I see the flexibility of DocBook also as an advantage. This flexibility works
quite well with classic documentation which follows books or articles. However,
it falls a bit apart when you try to follow a more topic-oriented approach.


--
GruÃ/Regards
  Thomas Schraitle