Re: Recursive use of elements <option> and <optional>
Bob Stayton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.docbook.misc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, The best place is github, unless there is no action, in which case you can raise it on docbook-apps. Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises [email protected] On 12/7/2016 6:23 AM, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > 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 In db5 this is no longer valid.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] >>> >>> >> >