OASIS DocBook TC2

Hi folks, I just noticed that the html:* elements are explicitly excluded from the db._any pattern. AFAICT, this only means that html:* is excluded from info. That seems...odd, but in the dim recesses of my mind, perhaps not accidental. Does anyone remember the rationale? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> Some disguised deceits counterfeit http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ truth so perfectly that not to be Chair, DocBook Technical Committee taken in by them would be an error of judgment.--La Rochefoucauld Attachment: pgpOydyfCpMvq.pgp Description: PGP signature

On 10.9.2012 20:57, Norman Walsh wrote: > I just noticed that the html:* elements are explicitly excluded from the > db._any pattern. AFAICT, this only means that html:* is excluded from > info. That seems...odd, but in the dim recesses of my mind, perhaps not > accidental. > > Does anyone remember the rationale? Honestly, no. Wasn't this attempt to prevent errors about competing definitions of ID when DocBook schema is combined with XHTML schema? Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attachment: signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

I don't remember either. I don't think this was due to the html table model either... --Scott On 9/11/12 6:46 AM, "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > On 10.9.2012 20:57, Norman Walsh wrote: > >> I just noticed that the html:* elements are explicitly excluded from the >> db._any pattern. AFAICT, this only means that html:* is excluded from >> info. That seems...odd, but in the dim recesses of my mind, perhaps not >> accidental. >> >> Does anyone remember the rationale? > > Honestly, no. Wasn't this attempt to prevent errors about competing > definitions of ID when DocBook schema is combined with XHTML schema? > > Jirka