I’ve run into the same thing. I have a separate file for our book info, so that I can move the copyright page to the back of the book for ebooks.
I am lazy, however, and just ignore the errors when I’m editing the info page:-). I essentially do what Norm mentioned; that is, only pay attention to validation when the block is included in a book. The other thing you could do, if you’re using xinclude, is to put the info block into a valid root element, so you can validate it, then use xinclude to include just the info element when you build a deliverable. I’m not sure how doable that is with assemblies. Dick Hamilton ------- XML Press XML for Technical Communicators http://xmlpress.net hamil...@xmlpress.net > On Nov 29, 2022, at 14:03, Thomas Schraitle <tom_s...@web.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 28.11.22 11:10, Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote: >>> currently, DocBook v5.2 (and previous versions) allows several elements as >>> root >>> element. However, it is currently not possible to use info "alone". Any >>> reasons >>> why? >> >> I can see how reusing metadata might make sense in some environments. I >> won’t speak for anyone else on the TC, but I tend to think of it as >> being attached to something. It provides metadata for an element, and so >> it’s not immediately obvious what it means sitting on its own. >> >> It isn’t that I thought there was any reason to forbid it so much as it >> never occurred to me that it would be useful. > > I know, this use case may be not very common. Still I think, if you use > assemblies and share content it might become more helpful, especially when you > want (or need to) validate on its own. > > >>> Imagine you would like to share some common meta information among several >>> articles: >> >> There’s obviously nothing that prevents you from doing this. You can >> XInclude this metadata file into several articles and then validate >> them. >> >> It would be a very simple Relax-NG customization to allow info in the >> “start” pattern then it could be validated independently. > > That's true, but that wouldn't be DocBook anymore. ;) Thus validating wouldn't > work. > > > -- > Gruß/Regards > Thomas Schraitle > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
