Hi Kate, If you want this to be considered by the DocBook Technical Committee for inclusion in future versions of DocBook schemas, please file a RFE on the DocBook SourceForge site:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=21935 (select "RFEs") You must be a member to submit new items. I can tell you that such generic container elements have been discussed in the past but never adopted. Be sure to include all of your arguments and use cases to support your request. Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: Dave Pawson Cc: David Cramer ; [email protected] ; Jirka Kosek ; Scott Hudson Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para? What we need is a free-floating container element that takes a title and allows other block elements (e.g, indexterms, paras, lists, etc.,) within it. We want a container element because it is useful for reuse and relocation of content. We want the element to be free-floating because we need to be able to put the element anywhere and have other content elements follow it (including itself). The problem with bridgeheads is that they are just titles and you can't show the relationship between the title and the content that follows it. To xinclude you'd have xinclude the bridgehead as well as each element that follows. We would prefer to have one container element that you could put an ID on and be able to conditionalize it and/or xinclude it. We actually have two cases where we need free-floating container elements with titles: 1) One where the title is not inline -- this element would be akin to simplesect if simplesect was not non-floating. 2) One where the title is inline -- this element would be akin to formalpara if formalpara allowed you to have more than one para and allowed other block elements. Currently for 1) we use sidebars instead of bridgeheads because we needed a sub-section-level container element with a title, that could be used anywhere and multiple times within a section. Simplesect, because it is non-floating, did not meet our requirements. We are looking for a solution for 2) because formalparas do not meet our needs, but they are the best alternative we have right now. Thanks again, Kate Dave Pawson <[email protected]> 07/24/2009 12:25 AM To David Cramer <[email protected]> cc Scott Hudson <[email protected]>, [email protected], Jirka Kosek <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para? Why not use a bridgehead and multiple paras? formalpara is singular? Hence one para? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
