"Rowland, Larry" <> writes:
> I would think that an info element that sometimes contributes to the
> output and sometimes does not would be confusing and possibly
> difficult to explain. I am also not sure we need an override element.
> Why not assume any content containing element that is a child of a
> module is intended to override the referenced content.
That's what I proposed.
> Then add an
> assemblyinfo element that is explicitly identified as providing
> information about the assembly rather than the output (or add a role
> attribute or some other customization mechanism) for information about
> the assembly. I think that would be a simpler markup model and easier
> to explain.
Except I left out assemblyinfo or a role. The fact that folks (think
they) need both a way to change the info of a module and a way to
specify assembly-file-level metadata about the module is a confusing
problem.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <> | There is only one difference
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | between a madman and me. I am not
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | mad.--Salvador Dali
