-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'm trying to recap where we stand on this proposal.
There seems to be general agreement that it's a good idea. The
question is, exactly what should the markup look like?
My favorite combination of proposals so far is:
1. Procedure remains unchanged
If you need alternatives at the top level, don't you really have
different procedures?
2. Replace 'substeps' in step with (substeps|stepalternatives)
Both substeps and stepalternatives contain (step+). For substeps,
the processing expectation is "choose all, in the specified order".
For stepalternatives, the processing expectation is "choose exactly one".
While it's true that an attribute on 'substeps' could be used, that
seems like too significant a processing expectation to stick in an attribute.
(By that rationale, we could have a <list> element with an attribute
to choose between ordered and itemized, but we don't.)
It's also true that stepalternatives could contain (branch+), but that
seems unnecessary. Context seems sufficient.
If anyone has new information, please send it along soon. I expect
we'll consider this proposal next Tuesday.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Men are not sufficiently perfect
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | to exercise justice in the name of
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | virtue: the rule of life should be
| indulgence and kindness of
| heart.--Anatole France
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE9puwQOyltUcwYWjsRAvqbAJ9CvT9Az6/cZxEyeS03zdGB4RhR/gCdHkr7
ABcO9Se6vV+i3pxuAAlp03w=
=spuL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
