This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: para versus simpara?
- From: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>
- Cc: docbook mailing list <docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:37:36 -0500
- Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: para versus simpara?
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211202121240.31141-100000@dell>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> was heard to say:
| i'm not clear on the rationale for the <simpara> element.
| since it seems to be a restricted version of <para>, does it
| have any benefits? i guess, other than that it can be
| transformed differently based on a stylesheet.
Some users want to prevent paragraphs from containing "block" elements
(as HTML does). The simpara element gives them an alternative to para
that has the semantics they want. And they can make a customization
layer that's a proper subset of DocBook simply by removing the 'para'
element from the DTD.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | In science, "fact" can only mean
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | "confirmed to such a degree that
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | it would be perverse to withhold
| provisional assent." I suppose
| that apples might start to rise
| tomorrow, but the possibility does
| not merit equal time in physics
| classrooms.--Stephen J. Gould
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE+B3QQOyltUcwYWjsRAguLAKCftqnmYvNdKtwbfMxfUVp1r1XKWgCfSmcV
3axdF2IGy/+ehjNbqj/lEFc=
=Ymiv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----