Re: DOCBOOK: New element for Step alternatives?

[Paul Grosso <pgrosso at arbortext dot com>]

At 16:20 2002 09 18 -0400, Sabine Ocker - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>Paul-
>Not all the occurances of Alternative contain the "if" action branching...
>the first example I provided in my reponse to Dave Pawson from the 
>"To Change the Alignment of the Table" procedure has multiple options
>to choose from, a series of "to do {whatever}" alternatives. 
>
>We want to have distinct markup to use when we have a "choice" of actions,
>rather than a series of actions.
>
>There is still alot we can do which is useful with even this half way 
>utilization of if-ness. 
>
>Using Role=branch wouldn't work for us. 

I hear you saying that, but I don't see you explaining that.
Certainly, I could write stylesheets (or, if I couldn't,
Norm could) that trigger on the role=branch attribute as
well as on a <branch> element.

If role=branch doesn't work for you, then what about 
adding the <alternatives> element, but leaving the
elements within it steps?  That makes the "choosing"
semantic clear and reflects that fact that the individual
things within alternatives are really the same as the
individual things within "sequences" (which are implicit
within procedures).  If reflects that fact that a step
is a step, and whether you follow up with the next step
or some other step is indicated by the wrapper.

paul