This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the DocBook project.
RE: [docbook] Task Markup (delinquent action item)
- From: "HAMILTON,DICK (HP-FtCollins,ex1)" <dick dot hamilton at hp dot com>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:51:50 -0400
- Subject: RE: [docbook] Task Markup (delinquent action item)
I'll take a shot at answering this one, which isn't off-base.
A good starting place is the RFE, which contains a justification
from the originators. This can be found at:
(note that the current proposal differs from this RFE, but the
justification is still valid).
In a nutshell, the existing <procedure> markup does not provide
semantic markup for some of the things that are commonly used
when defining procedures (prerequisites, examples, etc.). To
work around this, writers often put a procedure inside a section
that contains this other information.
The <task> proposal puts the all of these pieces into a single
container to make it easier for writers to create consistent
procedural markup. Also, though it's not mentioned in the RFE,
a single, semantically marked up, container should make it easier
to re-use or dynamically deliver this kind of content, because
you can easily find everything that belongs with the procedure.
I hope that helps.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Biss [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:13 AM
> To: Dave Pawson
> Cc: Norman Walsh; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [docbook] Task Markup (delinquent action item)
> Alright, I may have missed this in previous emails to this list, but
> what is the difference between the proposed <task> and the existing
> <procedure>? A task can be presented easily as a procedure, I
> use this
> element for this purpose.
> If I am off-base you can tell me to shut up.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org