On 29 April 2016 at 07:56, Thomas Schraitle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Although @role would be probably one solution, in that case I favor to > extend the schema. I propose to allow <danger> for the following > reasons: > > * There is a need > * Matches well with ANSI Z535 standard > * It's consistent with the other admonition elements > * Aligns well with DITA if someone has to transform documents back > and forth > * From a language perspective, <danger> expresses a higher risk of > injury and/or death than <caution> (or any other admonition elements). > (Maybe not useful for software documentation, but DocBook can also be > used in other industries where this is very much needed.) > > > Does it make sense to open an RFE? That way the committee can discuss > this in one of the next meetings?
Based on this thread, ask the committee, seems like a worthwhile RFE with a solid user requirement. Longer term, Bobs idea of bringing it into line might be worthwhile putting in the parking lot for rev n+1? regards --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
