On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 15:05, Norm Tovey-Walsh <n...@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > > From Norms comments, " ## A group of formal objects, for example subfigures" > > seems a bit off (my view), rather than 'formal objects' (I've a job > > relating to that), > > how about 'related' or 'closely related' then figures / subfigures > > matches (to me). >
> Over time, a back-formation developed: if the things that didn’t have > titles were “informal”, then collectively, the things that *did* have > titles were “formal”. > > So we ended up with formalgroup: a group of “formal” objects. Is this made clear in TDG? https://tdg.docbook.org/tdg/5.2/formalgroup No? IMHO that might help (general use of 'formal' in db). History has its place etc. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
