Hallo,
as far as I understand the migration from db4 to db5 the definition and
content model of "technical inline elements" (%tech.char.class; ?)
changed significant. I want to add some comments to their *recursive*
use - not to the other aspects of this elements.
Positive:
In db4 it was able to use <function> ("Function -- The name of a
function or subroutine, as in a programming language") recursively. In
db5 this is no longer possible. I appreciate this change as a function
name is an atomic construct and cannot contain other function names.
The same applies to <literal> ("Literal -- Inline text that is some
literal value").
In db4 it was possible to use <literal> as a subelement of <function>
and vice versa. In db5 this is no longer possible. I have seen some
situations in our documentation, but they don't make sense and shall be
modified by manual intervention.
Negative:
In db4 it was possible to use <option> and <optional> recusively:
<option> within <option> or <option> within <optional> and vice versa.
This makes sense as it reflects the real situation of computer
languages. In db5 this is no longer valid. As long as there is no other
technique to express such computer language situations we need the
recursivity as it was defined in db4.
In db4 it was possible to use <function> as a subelement of <parameter>.
This is no longer possible in db5. Also <funcsynopsis> is not valid
within <parameter>. Especially for functional languages like Scala it is
natural to use functions as parameters. Therefore the db4 semantic makes
sense.
In summary the content model of all IT related elements shall be reviewed:
* Which elements are really atomic?
* Which elements may contain which other elements, especially elements
of the same kind?
Kind regards
Jürgen Purtz
On 21.06.2016 07:58, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
In docbook 4.x it was possible to use <optional> in a recursive way,
eg:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createtable.html or
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-select.html.
Optional elements often are only valid under the additional demand,
that they are part of another optional element. The same holds true
for arguments of commands or procedures.
We try to upgrade to docbook 5.x, but the schema doesn't allow the
recursive use of <option> and <optional>. Do you have an advice how to
express such situations? Do you have plans to modify the docbook 5
schema to allow recursive use of the two elements?
Kind Regards
Jürgen Purtz
juer...@purtz.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org