DOCBOOK: funcdef/function/returnvalue

[Trevor Jenkins <trevor dot jenkins at suneidesis dot com>]

In TDG the examples for funcdef are of this style:

<funcdef>int <function>sample</function></funcdef>

However, the content model for function allows the returnvalue element.
This implies that one could markup that same function as:

<funcdef><function><returnvalue>int</returnvalue> sample</function></funcdef>

Now the question is whether that's sensible. (I'd argue that returntype is
a better name for an element in this context.)

How would others markup such function definitions? Staying with TDG or
going with the alternative.

I've a document with 900 such function definitions. Some done as TDG and
others as the alternative. Clearly I have to go with one or the other,
whichever I choose there's work to be done. But which one do I adopt?

Regards, Trevor

British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living language.
Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now!
Details at http://www.fdp.org.uk/ or http://www.bsl-march.co.uk/

-- 

<>< Re: deemed!