On 10/12/13 17:58, Norman Walsh wrote:
snip
Part of our miscommunication may be a question of perspective. I tend
to think of figure, table, example, and equation as all members of a
class of thing (which we call "formal" objects because they have a
title).
So I see "allow figure in example" as naturally leading to "allow
figure in table" and "allow table in equation". Historically, DocBook
has not allowed "formal objects" to nest.
My view is slightly different?
I see example as marginally higher in level? I'm talking about subject X
and want to show an example of it.
para blah blah blah, see example 1
example
title
image
this is where I agree with Norm.
If I see
example
title
figure
title
image / svg etc
then I don't want to duplicate the title for both example and figure.
However, they aren't really all exactly uniform. For even more distant
historical reasons, the title on equation is optional. And I can see
that "example" can easily be taken as broader than figure, table, or
equation.
That said, this still feels a bit weird to me:
<example>
<title>Example of something</title>
<para>Some prose.</para>
<figure>
<title>Figure title</title>
<mediaobject>...</mediaobject>
</figure>
</example>
which (sort of) supports my idea of example containing (non - titled)
figures/tables/....
I personally never did understand formal vs informal... or it never
made sense to me?
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]
