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. Bob -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [docbook] Status of bug #281: allow xi:include in set Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:07:30 -0500 From: Test User <
testuser448@gmail.com> To:
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org Hello All, It was reported that xi:include was not allowed in <set>. At
http://sourceforge.net/p/docbook/rfes/281/ it says that the bug is "fixed for 5.1". When jing validates my document against the DocBook 5.1CR3 RELAX NG schema (docbookxi.rng), it reports: docs.xml:8:34: error: element "xi:include" not allowed here; expected the element end-tag or element "setindex" ,---- <?xml version="1.0"?> <set xmlns="
http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" ; xmlns:xi="
http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ; xml:lang="en" version="5.0"> <info> <title>Set title</title> </info> <xi:include href="book1.xml"/> <xi:include href="book2.xml"/> <!-- line 8 --> </set> `---- The document will validate if there is only one xi:include in the <set> so the sample document above is illegal. Is there in fact a version of the DocBook schema that will accept the document above? Regards, Test User.