I make most or all elements start elements in my DocBook variants because why not? What if you want to xi:include a <phrase> or a <note> multiple times (and find entities to be kludgy and gross)? Put it in a file and xi:include that file as needed. No need for an id or id fixup.
I also consider making a variant good practice. Nobody needs all of DocBook and changes like adding start elements have little effect on interoperability. Regards, David Typed wtih thmubs > On Nov 29, 2022, at 5:51 PM, Richard Hamilton <hamil...@xmlpress.net> wrote: > > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
