"Hudson, Scott" <> writes:
> SH: Do you want to just paste from the spec, or do you have source somewhere
I'll start by pasting from the spec, I think. I don't have this work
checked in anywhere yet.
>> Right. We could make a refentry page for each one, but that seemed
>> like overkill. I should probably just format that list as a table with
>> the one line description and a link or something.
> SH: there's a description of each in the spec. We could just use that?
Yes, that makes sense.
>> It appears that the content model for info is "bag of DocBook stuff"
>> OR "bag of dcterms stuff". No mixing. Is that the intent? (Not that I
>> think it's successfully articulated because the DocBook stuff allows
>> *:*.)
> SH: Yes, that is correct. either or, no mixing.
Hey, good. I like that.
>>> HTML tables were explicitly removed from Publishers, though there is a
>>> request to add them back in, it is not part of the approved schema.
>>
>> Ah. Just fumble fingered on my part, I think. Fixed now :-)
>>
>> Publishers removes informaltable but leaves informalfigure and
>> informalexample? That's intentional, is it?
>>
> SH: hm. informaltable should still be in, according to the spec...
Ah, it's listed as both included and excluded. I grabbed the excluded list.
I'll "put it back".
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <> | Of all lies, art is the least
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | untrue.-- Flaubert
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
