Re: DOCBOOK: re step container for procedure

[Terry Allen <tallen at sonic dot net>]

Michael Smith wrote:
...

| > | Possible Solution
| > | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| > | The solution I'd like to discuss is to create a "Stepset" element with
| > | a simple Orderedlist-like structure
| > | 
| > |   <!ELEMENT stepset ((title, titleabbrev?)?, step+)
| > 
| > Which is probably what procedure should have been.
| 
| Too late now. That's why I'm suggesting addition of Stepset instead of
| radically restricting Procedure-- a compromise.

Never too late once you realize you've made a mistake.
...

| > | Having a Stepset container would make it possible for authoring groups
| > | to store and reuse *just* a set of steps itself-- without the Title or
| > | Para material specific to the particular context of the admin guide or
| > | the context of the training manual.
| > 
| > It's already possible to reuse the set of steps - use an entity.
| 
| Yep-- an excellent workaround that will always work. But a workaround.

Not a workaround, but a fundamental facility of SGML.  As this 
facility is available, no argument that markup is necessary to
make reuse possible is coherent.

| > Your proposal would introduce a container that's useless when the 
| > procedure has no intro
| 
| Sorry, I can't concede that Stepset would be useless when the
| procedure has no intro.
| 
| > (and there would be *many* questions and complaints about that)
| 
| What's the alternative? It seems like you and I are pretty much in
| agreement that the current model for Procedure is flawed. Or not? 
| If you agree, what fix do you think would work best?

Eliminate the intro stuff, or at very least go no farther in 
making procedure like a section.

| Essentially, what I'm saying is that it seems to me the Steps in a
| Procedure are basically like the Listitems in an Orderedlist. Is that
| an accurate statement? 

No.  Look at the content models.

| If it is accurate, it seems like we need a
| container for Steps that is like the containers we have for Listitems.

As I pointed out and you agreed (in elided lines), we have no
container just for listitems.  And you haven't justified any
need for one.

| This is also why I don't think RFE 144 is a good idea. The Procedure
| content model should not be used as a precedent for changes to the
| content models of other lists. It seems to me that Para or Formalpara
| can already be used for in the scenario that RFE 144 describes.

RFE 144 is adding intro material to lists.  I see now (though I
didn't before) that this is not a good idea.

But at this point I'll leave things to the Docbook TC.

regards, Terry Allen


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: docbook-request@lists.oasis-open.org