This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?
- From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>
- To: Steven Cogorno <steven dot cogorno at sun dot com>
- Cc: David Cramer <dcramer at motive dot com>,docbook mailing list <docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:00:59 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: any reason why a "procedure" is not a child of "para"?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Steven Cogorno wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day said:
> > consider a possible para:
> >
> > <para>If you want to start writing in DocBook, here are the
> > steps you'll need to do:
> > <procedure>
> > ....
> > </procedure>
> > </para>
> >
> > this makes perfect sense, and it's clear that the <procedure>
> > element logically belongs within the paragraph.
>
> So tag it as:
>
> <procedure>
> <para> If you want to start writing in DocBook, here are the
> steps you'll need to do:</para>
> <step>...</step>
> </procedure>
no way. that most definitely does not *logically* represent what
i'm trying to say.
and it additionally does not allow me to have a procedure within
a <para> so that i can have *trailing* information after the
procedure but before the end of the para. (that is, a procedure
must end with (step)+, and nothing else.)
enough. as dilbert once said to a co-worker, "um ... this is
where you agree with me and we move on."
rday