discuss: DocBook number of elements rant
Subject:
re: DocBook number of elements rant
From:
Greg Ferguson ####@####.####
Date:
22 Aug 2003 22:00:07 -0000
Message-Id: <200308222155.h7MLtHxM010453@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:28:48 -0700 David Braun ####@####.#### wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 14:12, Martin WHEELER wrote:
> > Unfortunately David, you just >>don't know<< in advance how your marked
> ...
> > (I can think of several good instances in statistical linguistics why
> > someone should want to analyse a series of documents of a certain type
> > for the frequency of occurrence of 'copyright' or 'trademark'.)
>
> Right! So why isn't the copyright element in the Sample-HOWTO.xml?
> Should it be?
Because I didn't use that element when I put the sample together. I
suppose I could of, but instead I used <pubdate>, and a <sect> containing
the copyright and license info. The joy of markup - many ways to accomplish
the same task...author's preference.
The only mark-up the LDP enforces is a found in the <arcticleinfo>
or <bookinfo> area of one's document. This is where the majority of
meta-data is found.
> > If however you want it to conform to all other documents produced by
> the
> > LDP, then you are going to have to compromise somewhere along the line
> > between your own frustrations, and the needs of the group.
> > It really is as simple as that.
>
> Right! So the question I'm trying to ask is, "What are the needs of the
> group?"
>
> E.g., Saqib Ali just pointed out the Simplified DocBook (thanks,
> Saqib!). Is that acceptable to the LDP?
As long as it's a proper subset of some version of DocBook, it should
work fine. The public id ("<!DOCTYPE...>") may need to be tweaked
to satisfy our publishing mechanism, but other than that it should
work fine.
--
Greg
