This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
RE: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?
- From: David Cramer <dcramer at motive dot com>
- To: docbook mailing list <docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:01:21 -0600
- Subject: RE: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?
Nested procedures, procedures inside of tables, etc. would be messy--not
sure how you'd number them. <substeps> allows you to nest procedures
without that problem. I think no procedures in paras is a good thing.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw at nwalsh dot com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 6:43 AM
To: docbook mailing list
Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of
"para"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com> was heard to say:
| i just noticed that the procedure element cannot be a child
| of a para, as can other lists. any reason for this? it seems
| like this would be useful if a procedure should be considered
| part of its enclosing paragraph. just curious.
I don't recall consciously deciding to exclude it. File an RFE, I guess.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com> | Debugging is 99% complete most of
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | the time--Fred Brooks, jr.
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |