Copying the list. You have some interesting points, Thomas. I'll add that another reason I like to put lists inside of their introducing paras is that in my xml editor, that means I can grab the whole semantic unit as one object.
And further to my point about reuse...it's often important to put a whole concept in a single element in order to use it with an xinclude, so combining the list into its introductory para helps with that too. --Aaron On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Thomas Schraitle <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Aron, > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 10:11:32 -0600 > Aaron DaMommio <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Aha, I see where you're going with that. I have completely the > > opposite preference: I typically prefer lists to be contained within > > the paragraph that introduces them. That makes more sense to me > > functionally. When editing or reusing, it means you have access to > > either the para (as a container of itself and the list) or the list > > alone. I don't see that you give up any flexibility that way. > > Ah, that's interesting. :) > > Maybe it's a matter of taste, but for me a paragraph is text and (maybe) > some inline elements. For me it doesn't make sense to "insert" a block > element into a paragraph. Block elements are per se an interuption of the > normal text flow. Although I can understand that they can be useful > for some and to emphasis its semantic togetherness. I don't like this > concept. :) > > > > Also, your problem, in this case, stems only from a customization ... > > and not even a simple subset; you're saying, 'I have a problem if I > > choose a subset AND alter the behavior of para'. > > Well, yes, maybe this is not the best sentence. :) > > > > The fact that there are several cases (I think) where only paras are > > allowed inside something else leads me to think that lists-in-paras > > is a feature, not a problem, or that it was a design choice. But I'd > > love to hear someone with actual historical knowledge pipe up. > > It is a feature and for some people it has a real value. > > Maybe my dislike comes from the fact that writing customization layers > in XSLT can be a pain when dealing with such mixed content. If you have > paras and other block elements, there is a clear separation. > > > > On the other hand, perhaps we'd be better off if the model was > > simpler and instead of paras, every place where a para is allowed > > allowed any block element. Would there be problems with that path, I > > wonder? I'd want to review the schema. > > Not sure. Probably, it makes the schema more elaborate. Plus you have > to adapt the XSLT stylesheets as well to understand all the > combinations -- and deal with unusual combinations appropriately. > > Well, usually DocBook has a very relaxed or broad content modell. I > observed the opposite with abstract. Not sure why this is the case, > that why I' wondering and wrote this to the list. > > > -- > Gruß/Regards, > Thomas Schraitle > -- -------------------------------------- Aaron DaMommio: Husband, father, writer, juggler, and expert washer of dishes. - My blog: http://aarondamommio.blogspot.com - Need a juggler? http://amazingaaronjuggler.blogspot.com/ =======================================
