Norman Walsh wrote:
The DocBook TC is considering solutions to RFC 1998852 which asks
for a mechanism to group method parameters.
Instead of creating new elements for this purpose, it was suggested
that we already have a group element that we could use for this
purpose. (It already serves an analagous role in grouping arguments in
a cmdsynopsis.)
The results can be seen in this experimental customization layer:
And its accompanying test document:
</article>
This seems a perfectly tractable answer, but its worth noting that
this would be the first case of an element with two distinct,
unrelated content models. (We already use multiple patterns for the
same element to handle validation of some attribute co-constraints,
but those are much more closely related, or at least they feel that
way to me.)
Does anyone think that this would be confusing?
Technically, there is no way to represent this in DTD syntax and,
though it could be represented in XSD, our current method of
generating the XSD would not be able to cope. But I'm inclined to
think that we shouldn't feel constrained by the limitations of DTDs
and perhaps we need to build a better XSD in any event.
rng wise looks good. I don't feel any antipathy towards overloading
the group element. Common purpose even if a different 'place' in the
schema.
Am I right in thinking that so far, we've been OK with 'backwards'
translation to both DTD and xsd?
I'm a little more than 50% supportive of retaining that
ability, sensing that people happily quote that docbook works
with XSD.
I shan't shout if you go with this solution, just a little
concerned that some users (those locked into W3C/MS worlds) who
are xsd bound might hurt if this breaks that assumption?
"perhaps we need to build a better XSD in any event"
Does that mean something other than Jing to go from .rng to .xsd?
regards
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
