Re: Tabs and <formalgroup> content model

Dave Pawson <[email protected]> Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:05:56 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.text.docbook.misc
Message-ID	<CAEncD4e_ZPN9VzRuobYN9Yj0pS6_vVRhRBmvgZik7E=inNxnUg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 15:05, Norm Tovey-Walsh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > From Norms comments, " ## A group of formal objects, for example subfig=
ures"
> > seems a bit off (my view), rather than 'formal objects' (I've a job
> > relating to that),
> > how about 'related' or 'closely related' then figures / subfigures
> > matches (to me).
>

> Over time, a back-formation developed: if the things that didn=E2=80=99t =
have
> titles were =E2=80=9Cinformal=E2=80=9D, then collectively, the things tha=
t *did* have
> titles were =E2=80=9Cformal=E2=80=9D.
>
> So we ended up with formalgroup: a group of =E2=80=9Cformal=E2=80=9D obje=
cts.

Is this made clear in TDG?
https://tdg.docbook.org/tdg/5.2/formalgroup  No?

IMHO that might help (general use of 'formal' in db).
  History has its place etc.
regards


--=20
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.