Hi Gabor,
The first substeps wrapper is not necessary. The stepalternatives element
can appear after para in a step. So your construct could look like this:
<step>
<para>If A</para>
<stepalternatives>
<step>
<para>If A/1</para>
<substeps>
<step>
...
Why is a substeps wrapper required for the second case? Most likely to
avoid confusion.
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Gabor Kovesdan" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:48 AM
To: "DocBook Apps" <[email protected]>
Subject: [docbook-apps] procedure steps
Hi,
I'm finding the currect implementation of procedure lists quite
cumbersome and I'm wondering that someone else had the same experiences
or I'm just doing something wrong. For example, if I have some
alternative steps, I use the <stepalternative> tag but it has to be
wrapped into a <step>, which kind of bloats my rendered output:
<step>
<para>If A</para>
<substeps>
<step>
<stepalternatives>
<step>
<para>If A/1</para>
<substeps>
<step>
<para>Do foo.</para>
</step>
</substeps>
</step>
</stepalternatives>
</step>
</substeps>
</step>
The actual case is much more complicated but you can see how it becomees
bloated...
Apart from the quite unpleasant rendering, I wonder why the substeps
wrapper is necessary. It would be easier to just allow nested steps
after the initial block content and to also allow stepalternatives as a
wrapper inside steps:
<step>
<para>If A</para>
<stepalternatives>
<step>
<para>If A/1</para>
<step>
<para>Do foo.</para>
</step>
</step>
</stepalternatives>
</step>
I think it carries the same semantical content.
Any comments?
Thanks,
Gabor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
