OASIS DocBook TC2

Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> writes: > I just checked the latest schemas that Norm uploaded to OASIS, and > it appears that this is indeed a bug. > > In all other instances of xi:include in the DB XInclude schema, the > xi:include was part of a pattern named db.*.content or > db.*.components, and then that pattern is used with a repeatable > suffix in the element definition. But in set, we have: > > db.set.components = > ((db.set db.book)+ db.article+) > db.xi.include > > element set { > db.set.attlist, > db.set.info, > db.toc.components?, > db.set.components, > db.setindex.components? > } > > That only allows a single xi:include in place of other elements. We > must allow more than one, and we must allow a mix of xi:include and > elements. Yep. We don't do that in set because we forbid mixing books and articles in a set. Given how relaxed we are about such things in other places, perhaps the straightforward fix is: db.set.components = (db.set db.book db.article) db.xi.include element set { db.set.attlist, db.set.info, db.toc.components?, db.set.components+, db.setindex.components? } Alternatively, we could work a little harder: db.set.components = ((db.set db.book db.xi.include)+ (db.article db.xi.include)+) element set { db.set.attlist, db.set.info, db.toc.components?, db.set.components+, db.setindex.components? } Thoughts? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> To think is not enough; you must http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ think of something.--Jules Renard Chair, DocBook Technical Committee Attachment: signature.asc Description: PGP signature

I don¹t see any reason why we should restrict books and articles from mixing in the same documentation set? The point of a set is to provide a collection of information, is it not? I prefer the first option. Thanks and best regards, Scott Hudson Senior Consultant Comtech Services Inc. 303-232-7586 On 2/26/15, 1:28 PM, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: >Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> writes: >> I just checked the latest schemas that Norm uploaded to OASIS, and >> it appears that this is indeed a bug. >> >> In all other instances of xi:include in the DB XInclude schema, the >> xi:include was part of a pattern named db.*.content or >> db.*.components, and then that pattern is used with a repeatable >> suffix in the element definition. But in set, we have: >> >> db.set.components = >> ((db.set db.book)+ db.article+) >> db.xi.include >> >> element set { >> db.set.attlist, >> db.set.info, >> db.toc.components?, >> db.set.components, >> db.setindex.components? >> } >> >> That only allows a single xi:include in place of other elements. We >> must allow more than one, and we must allow a mix of xi:include and >> elements. > >Yep. We don't do that in set because we forbid mixing books and articles >in a set. > >Given how relaxed we are about such things in other places, perhaps the >straightforward fix is: > > db.set.components = > (db.set db.book db.article) > db.xi.include > > element set { > db.set.attlist, > db.set.info, > db.toc.components?, > db.set.components+, > db.setindex.components? > } > >Alternatively, we could work a little harder: > > db.set.components = > ((db.set db.book db.xi.include)+ (db.article db.xi.include)+) > > element set { > db.set.attlist, > db.set.info, > db.toc.components?, > db.set.components+, > db.setindex.components? > } > >Thoughts? > Be seeing you, > norm > >-- >Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> To think is not enough; you must > http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ think of something.--Jules Renard >Chair, DocBook Technical Committee

I would favor the relaxed version, because I see no compelling reason to restrict what people mix in a set. If we do that, you could move the closing parens from after db.article to after db.xi.include, no? Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises bobs@sagehill.net On 2/26/2015 12:28 PM, Norman Walsh wrote: Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> writes: I just checked the latest schemas that Norm uploaded to OASIS, and it appears that this is indeed a bug. In all other instances of xi:include in the DB XInclude schema, the xi:include was part of a pattern named db.*.content or db.*.components, and then that pattern is used with a repeatable suffix in the element definition. But in set, we have: db.set.components = ((db.set db.book)+ db.article+) db.xi.include element set { db.set.attlist, db.set.info, db.toc.components?, db.set.components, db.setindex.components? } That only allows a single xi:include in place of other elements. We must allow more than one, and we must allow a mix of xi:include and elements. Yep. We don't do that in set because we forbid mixing books and articles in a set. Given how relaxed we are about such things in other places, perhaps the straightforward fix is: db.set.components = (db.set db.book db.article) db.xi.include element set { db.set.attlist, db.set.info, db.toc.components?, db.set.components+, db.setindex.components? } Alternatively, we could work a little harder: db.set.components = ((db.set db.book db.xi.include)+ (db.article db.xi.include)+) element set { db.set.attlist, db.set.info, db.toc.components?, db.set.components+, db.setindex.components? } Thoughts? Be seeing you, norm