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:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=21935&atid=384107&func=detail&aid=6
21564
(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.
Dick Hamilton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Biss [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:13 AM
> To: Dave Pawson
> Cc: Norman Walsh;
> 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.
>
> Jeff
>
