Hi Kate,
I was going to suggest you use sidebar with a role attribute, but your earlier
mail said you were already doing that. I think sidebar is semantically a good
match for "defining/explaining/introducing a term/option/clause/concept". Most
people think of sidebar as formatted to the side, but it does not have to be.
Since DocBook XML markup is not meant to indicate formatting, a sidebar is
intended to indicate content "out of the regular flow", and which *might* be
formatted to the side.
Your original inquiry about formalpara did not seem to be motivated by
formatting issues, but by authoring issues. You wanted a container for
multiple paragraphs so you could move them as a unit. That kind of need is
pretty common, but is often hard to implement in element structure. I have
worked with content in which it was the writing style to precede every figure
and table with a paragraph that explains the relevance of the following figure
or table ("The following figure shows ..."). You can see how those also have
to stay together to make sense, but trying to implement that combination as an
element container would be kind of awkward. Since DocBook does not support an
arbitrary <div> container, it usually falls on the author to pay attention when
moving content around.
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: Bob Stayton
Cc: David Cramer ; [email protected] ; Jirka Kosek ; Scott Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?
Hi Bob,
Thank you for your advice and suggestion to submit a RFE to the DocBook
committee.
Perhaps my team isn't using formalparas correctly. Could you explain a bit
more as to how they should be used?
We use formalparas for defining/explaining/introducing a
term/option/clause/concept. It's the assumption/restriction that this can
always be done in a
single para that is forcing us to resort to other tagging instead (e.g., like
just bolding the term inline in a para, which isn't ideal, or needlessly
creating variablelists).
We desire multi-para formalparas (to embed a definition in the larger topic,
but differentiated style). We could then bring in the formalpara margins by 3
or 4 spaces to differentiate it from regular paras that follow, etc. :))
Thanks again,
Kate
"Bob Stayton" <[email protected]>
07/25/2009 12:18 PM
To <[email protected]>
cc "David Cramer" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, "Jirka Kosek" <[email protected]>, "Scott Hudson"
<[email protected]>
Subject Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas only allow one para?
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
