Re: Recursive use of elements <option> and <optional>

I opened a new issue at github concerning this problem. What is the 
correct place to communicate: github or oasis e-mail list?

Kind regards
Jürgen Purtz


On 27.06.2016 17:09, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> as far as I understand the migration from db4 to db5 the definition 
> and content model of "technical inline elements" (%tech.char.class; ?) 
> changed significant. I want to add some comments to their *recursive* 
> use - not to the other aspects of this elements.
>
>
> Positive:
>
> In db4 it was able to use <function> ("Function -- The name of a 
> function or subroutine, as in a programming language") recursively. In 
> db5 this is no longer possible. I appreciate this change as a function 
> name is an atomic construct and cannot contain other function names.
>
> The same applies to <literal> ("Literal -- Inline text that is some 
> literal value").
>
> In db4 it was possible to use <literal> as a subelement of <function> 
> and vice versa. In db5 this is no longer possible. I have seen some 
> situations in our documentation, but they don't make sense and shall 
> be modified by manual intervention.
>
>
> Negative:
>
> In db4 it was possible to use <option> and <optional> recusively: 
> <option> within <option> or <option> within <optional> and vice versa. 
> This makes sense as it reflects the real situation of computer 
> languages. In db5 this is no longer valid. As long as there is no 
> other technique to express such computer language situations we need 
> the recursivity as it was defined in db4.
>
> In db4 it was possible to use <function> as a subelement of 
> <parameter>. This is no longer possible in db5. Also <funcsynopsis> is 
> not valid within <parameter>. Especially for functional languages like 
> Scala it is natural to use functions as parameters. Therefore the db4 
> semantic makes sense.
>
> In summary the content model of all IT related elements shall be reviewed:
>
>   * Which elements are really atomic?
>   * Which elements may contain which other elements, especially
>     elements of the same kind?
>
>
> Kind regards
> Jürgen Purtz
>
>
> On 21.06.2016 07:58, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
>> In docbook 4.x it was possible to use <optional> in a recursive way, 
>> eg: 
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createtable.html 
>> or https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-select.html. 
>> Optional elements often are only valid under the additional demand, 
>> that they are part of another optional element. The same holds true 
>> for arguments of commands or procedures.
>>
>> We try to upgrade to docbook 5.x, but the schema doesn't allow the 
>> recursive use of <option> and <optional>. Do you have an advice how 
>> to express such situations? Do you have plans to modify the docbook 5 
>> schema to allow recursive use of the two elements?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Jürgen Purtz
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>