On 10/12/13 15:57, Norman Walsh wrote:
Erik Leunissen <[email protected]> writes:
I've construed a docbook 5.0 xml document whose structure appears to
be invalid because it holds <equation>'s and <figure>'s as descendants
of an <example>.
- I'm curious about the rationale regarding this being invalid.
I think, generally speaking, it would be unsual to see a titled figure
nested inside a titled example. How, for example, would you label such
a figure?
First off: I feel a bit uncomfortable that I don't quite grasp the
reason that you asking these questions. Maybe there is an implicit
misunderstanding. I'm going to try to be explicit ...
I didn't think of anything different at all for the label than those of
other figures in the document. I don't see why I would want that to be
different.
What's your motivation for putting figures and equations inside an
example?
I've got the feeling that asking for a motivation is like turning the
world upside down. Have you never seen a theoretical exposition in a
textbook that clarifies it's theory with an example, where a figure is
used (regardless titles, regardless figure labels)?
Before I continue, I'd like to check whether there is anything wrong
with my understanding. Maybe it's the case that you mean something quite
different with an <example> than I do?
Best regards,
Erik Leunissen.
Be seeing you,
norm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
