Re: Assemblies, topics, sections and type

Hi Thomas,

I think a better possibility is to map topic/@type to 
section/@otherclass (and setting @class="other") during assembly. In 
DocBook 5.2, the @class attribute is added to section to support legal 
sections.  The @class attribute already exists on the article element, 
so that would work if you map your topics to articles instead of 
sections.  The topic element does not have an @class attribute, so there 
is no conflict there.

I see @type and @class as semantically equivalent for classifying 
elements.  They differ from @role, which I interpret as applying to a 
specific instance of an element.  So an instance of an element can be a 
member of a class but also carry a specific role for the given output.

The @class and @otherclass  mechanism that is used several times in the 
DocBook schema is a bit awkward, but it is designed to support 
enumeration of @class, especially through customization of the schema.  
That enforcement of enumeration during authoring is important in some 
use cases.  Other use cases that don't require such enforcement can use 
@otherclass in a looser classification scheme.

Bob Stayton
[email protected]

On 8/5/2021 5:00 AM, Thomas Schraitle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, I'm playing around with DocBook assemblies. I've created an
> assembly file, referenced some modules and a structure. The modules and
> structure is not really important, but the module. The structure
> declares to render the <topic> into a <section>.
>
> The module contains a <topic> element, but I also used a type attribute.
> As the TDG says, it "identifies the topic type" I use it to distinguish
> between a concept, task, or any other types. IMHO, that's a good fit, right?
>
> When I start the assembly process with the assembly.xsl stylesheet, the
> realized document renders the <topic> element into a <section>. So far,
> so good.
>
> However, as the <topic> contained a type attribute, this attribute is
> passed onto the <section> as well. Unfortunately, type is not allowed on
> a <section>, so the validation fails.
>
> I have some possible scenarios:
>
> a) deal with the removal of type inside the assembly file?
>     Would <transforms> be feasible for this task? Or should
>     that be better done outside?
>
> b) use a post-processing (XSLT) step and remove the annoying
>     attribute manually?
>
> c) allow type in <section>?
>     would require to amend the DocBook schema.
>
> d) customize assembly.xsl and remove type?
>
> e) anything else?
>
>
> What would you choose?
>
> Would like to hear your opinion. Thank you!
>
>
> --
> Gruß/Regards
>    Thomas Schraitle
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>