Re: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?

[steven dot cogorno at sun dot com (Steven Cogorno)]

Robert P. J. Day said:
> i don't follow this logic.  in a way, a procedure is just another
> kind of list, if you want to look at it that way.  and, certainly,
> all of the list-type elements can be children of paras.

And paras probably ought not be children of paras.

> folks recommended making a list a child of a para, or the next
> sibling element.  the response was to consider whether the
> list and the para were inherently linked, so that it made no
> sense to have one without the other.

I think what you are talking about is the "list intro."  It's now possible
to put a para within list before the list items. THis allows the list to
contain the intro and all of the list items.

Procedure's aren't simply a list of steps - steps can have alternatives,
substeps and content that introduces the steps. If procedures were permitted
in para, then procdures could nest within themselves.


> consider a possible para:
> 
>   <para>If you want to start writing in DocBook, here are the
>    steps you'll need to do:
>    <procedure>
>     ....
>    </procedure>
>   </para>
> 
> this makes perfect sense, and it's clear that the <procedure>
> element logically belongs within the paragraph.

So tag it as:

<procedure>
  <para> If you want to start writing in DocBook, here are the
  steps you'll need to do:</para>
  <step>...</step>
</procedure>


Steve Cogorno
Sun Microsystems