This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: New element for Step alternatives?
- From: Sabine Ocker - Sun Microsystems <Sabine dot Ocker at Sun dot COM>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org, pgrosso at arbortext dot com
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:20:40 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: New element for Step alternatives?
- Reply-to: Sabine Ocker - Sun Microsystems <Sabine dot Ocker at Sun dot COM>
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. This Step Alternative proposal is
part of a larger attempt to make consistant the way writers author
Procedure content, and it is very similar to the current work-around we are
trying to get away from.
Sabine-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I don't know if my response to Dave Pawson as well as the additional
>examples provide a better context for you, but your example isn't quite
>what I had in mind-- as the "fork" in the action path is determined
>by whether the Volume Manager is or isn't running.
Right, that was exactly my point: that your new markup wasn't needed
to represent a different structure per se, but that the content (e.g.,
the appearance of the word 'if') was driving your desire for the new
markup.
>1. Check if the Volume Manager is running.
>
> * If it is, Pour yourself a cup of coffee, and procede to Step 2.
>
> * If it isn't, start the Volume Manager by doing the following:
>
> a. Log in as root.
>
> b. Type /etc/init.d/volmgt start.
>
>2. Here is the next thing in both instances...
>
>So, you wouldn't get yourself a cup of coffee then log in as root...
>you would do either one OR the other. (^:
Yes, I understood that.
>In this case, the word "if" is significant, as it indicates that the user
>should select one action or the other.
Yes, this is what I was figuring and trying to confirm.
So the fact is that either step or branch markup would work for the
structural content you have, but you want to have distinctive markup
to use when you have the word 'if' in your text.
But I note that you're only going half way. If you're saying that
the if-ness of the text is key and the semantic implication is that
you skip some steps and "goto" another point in the procedure, then
you should want markup to indicate what the "if test clause" is and
a pointer/idref of where to go when the test clause is true.
I agree this probably seems like over kill for a DTD that is primarily
to produce documentation (after all, we aren't trying to re-invent
the IETM DTD).
But then part of me thinks that if you aren't really going to represent
your if-ness in markup to the point where you can do anything useful
with it, why bother to go in that direction at all. This is what is
making me hesitate with this whole proposal.
Maybe all we need is a role="branch" attribute (or whatever) on the step tag.
paul