[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 18:16 10/04/2004, Ari Nordström wrote:
>On Saturday 10 April 2004 09:23, Dave Pawson wrote:
> > For the completed document I'm 100% with you. It's a good option.
> >
> > Whilst writing one? No thanks.
>
>When writing the document, I think it's absolutely essential. My
>experience is
>that writers left to their own devices can quickly create costly problems.
When the document leaves the author or editors hands I'm with you.
As others have said, during the creation phase the document is likely
to go through the invalid valid state many times.
I find it really annoying to have big pop-up windows or other messages
saying my document is invalid, simply because I've paused long enough
to give the editor time to validate. I'll correct it, with any help
the editor can give me, but when I want.
>The DTD that is used will have to be right for the purpose--writing that
>particular document type in that particular context--but it doesn't have to
>be the same that is used when publishing the complete document.
I'm curious about the rationale behind this statement.
I can think of subsetting say docbook, to reduce the list of valid
tags at any one point, perhaps remove a set that I'm unlikely to use,
is that what you mean?
> > Whilst converting something from DTD A to B? No thanks.
>
>Agreed.
>
>
> > If you are purposely creating an invalid document? No thanks.
>
>That's the problem. I don't want my writers to purposefully create invalid
>documents.
Elliotte gave the example of adding xincludes to docbook.
To me that seems a valid reason to create an invalid document?
More generally I'd agree, but there are cases where its viable.
regards DaveP
|
