Hi Kate,
If you want this to be considered by the DocBook
Technical Committee for inclusion in future versions of DocBook schemas, please
file a RFE on the DocBook SourceForge site:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=21935
(select "RFEs")
You must be a member to submit new
items.
I can tell you that such generic container elements
have been discussed in the past but never adopted. Be sure to include all
of your arguments and use cases to support your request.
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Dave Pawson
Cc: David Cramer ; ;
Jirka Kosek ; Scott Hudson
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas
only allow one para?
What we need is a
free-floating container element that takes a title and allows other block
elements (e.g, indexterms, paras, lists, etc.,) within it.
We want a container element because it is useful for
reuse and relocation of content. We want the element to be free-floating
because we need to be able
to put the
element anywhere and have other content elements follow it (including
itself).
The problem with
bridgeheads is that they are just titles and you can't show the relationship
between the title and the content that follows it. To xinclude you'd have
xinclude the bridgehead as well as
each element that follows. We would prefer to have one container element that
you could put an ID on and be able to conditionalize it and/or xinclude
it.
We actually have two cases
where we need free-floating container elements with titles:
1) One where the title is not inline -- this element
would be akin to simplesect if simplesect was not non-floating.
2) One where the title is inline --
this element would be akin to formalpara if formalpara allowed you to have
more than one para and allowed other block elements.
Currently for 1) we use sidebars instead of bridgeheads
because we needed a sub-section-level container element with a title,
that could be used anywhere and multiple times within a section.
Simplesect, because it is non-floating, did
not meet our requirements.
We are
looking for a solution for 2) because formalparas do not meet our needs, but
they are the best alternative we have right now.
Thanks again,
Kate
Dave Pawson
<>
07/24/2009 12:25 AM
To
David Cramer
<>
cc
Scott Hudson
<>,
, Jirka Kosek <>,
Subject
Re: [docbook] Why do formalparas
only allow one para?
Why not use a bridgehead and multiple paras?
formalpara is
singular? Hence one para?
regards
--
Dave
Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO
FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
