Re: Allow <info> as root element?

Hi,

On 30.11.22 14:02, Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote:
>
>> That true, this would be possible. However, that wouldn't be DocBook an=
ymore.
>> Additionally, you increase your maintenance efforts if you have to crea=
te a
>> DocBook variant just for customize the start elements.
>
> Okay, but conversely, the position that the markup for every possible
> documentation scenario must be in standard DocBook doesn=E2=80=99t scale=
. It
> means DocBook just gets larger and looser until out of the box it has
> very few constraints.

Yes, it's always a balancing act between restricting the schema and to mak=
e it
flexible enough.

I don't suggest nor endorse adding all and everything as start element.
However, maybe in the light of topic-oriented writing there might be eleme=
nts
which could be useful to add like <info>.

I can fully understand that you don't want to change this. As another
alternative would be to offer two variants: the normal, DocBook schema and=
 a
schema suited more for assembly and topic-oriented writing.

This is not that unusual. We already have "official" DocBook variants: dbi=
ts,
Publishers, Simplified, ... It would be just another customization more su=
ited
for topic-oriented writing. The "DocBook Topic schema" could follow a more
relaxed approach for start elements. That would keep the normal DocBook sc=
hema
intact, but would offer another alternative.

Would that be a solution?


> For most non-trivial documentation tasks, I end up with a bit of custom
> markup and a bit of custom stylesheet processing. Sometimes I do that by
> making an actual schema customization, sometimes with Schematron, and
> sometimes by leveraging the new =E2=80=9Clocal-conventions=E2=80=9D tran=
sformation in
> xslTNG[1].

I suppose, that's probably the way to go. Or we could go the variant appro=
ach
as described in the last paragraph. :)


>> Sometimes I would appreciate some more hooks to ease customization. ;)
>
> Such as?

I don't remember exactly what was missing, as it has been some time since =
I
worked on our DocBook customization.

As far as I remember, I wanted to remove the xml:id attribute on certain
elements. Obviously you have to adapt the respective .attlist pattern.
Certainly there is no general pattern for that. Perhaps not the best examp=
le.

Maybe a better one and I vaguely remember now is that DocBook is basically
grouped into division, block, and inline elements. However, you can't
customize, let's say, all inline elements as the patterns aren't grouped t=
hat
way in the schema.

For example, if I want to forbid xml:id on all inline elements but keep th=
e
other groups untouched, I can't do that with one single line. I have to go=
 on
each and every inline element and adapt the .attlist pattern. It's not
difficult, but a bit cumbersome.

This is our DocBook customization:

https://github.com/openSUSE/geekodoc/blob/main/geekodoc/rng/2_5.2/geekodoc=
-v2.rnc


=2D-
Gru=C3=9F/Regards
   Thomas Schraitle