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

Sorry, I meant the docbook mailing list, not docbook-apps, since this is 
an issue for the schema, not the stylesheets.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
[email protected]

On 12/7/2016 8:53 AM, Bob Stayton wrote:
> 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 In db5 this is no longer valid.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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
>