literal element db v5

[Dave Pawson]

I'm transforming from a 'visual' markup language (a wiki)
and I've come across 'monospace' as markup.

My best guess docbook 5 equivalent would be literal.
In order to not lose the semantics, I want looking
for the role attribute. literal has common
attributes, but role isn't one of them?

yet in the xi schema I see
   <define name="db.literal.role.attribute">
       <attribute name="role"/>
     </define>
     <define name="db.literal.attlist">
       <interleave>
         <optional>
           <ref name="db.literal.role.attribute"/>
         </optional>
         <ref name="db.common.attributes"/>
         <ref name="db.common.linking.attributes"/>
       </interleave>
     </define>
     <define name="db.literal">
       <element name="literal">
         <a:documentation>Inline text that is some literal
value</a:documentation>
         <ref name="db.literal.attlist"/>
         <ref name="db._text"/>
       </element>

Is this a docbook omission?

regards



--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...

[Richard Hamilton-2]

Dave,

role is a valid attribute on literal and is a common
attribute.

I think the confusion is in the way it is defined in
the schema. While it is a common attribute, it is not
defined in db.common.attributes.

Instead, it is defined using a separate name for each
element (that's why you have db.literal.role.attribute).

Since role is user-defined, creating separate names for
each element lets customizers define the contents of
role independently for different elements.

So, it's a common attribute by virtue of being common,
but is defined separate from db.common.attributes so
that it can be customized.

BTW, literal is probably as close as you'll get for a
generic replacement for monospace.

Hope that helps.

Dick Hamilton
---------------------------------
XML Press
XML for Technical Communicators
http://xmlpress.net
[phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@...]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:14 AM
> To: docbook
> Subject: [docbook] literal element db v5
>
>
> I'm transforming from a 'visual' markup language (a wiki)
> and I've come across 'monospace' as markup.
>
> My best guess docbook 5 equivalent would be literal.
> In order to not lose the semantics, I want looking
> for the role attribute. literal has common
> attributes, but role isn't one of them?
>
> yet in the xi schema I see
>    <define name="db.literal.role.attribute">
>        <attribute name="role"/>
>      </define>
>      <define name="db.literal.attlist">
>        <interleave>
>          <optional>
>            <ref name="db.literal.role.attribute"/>
>          </optional>
>          <ref name="db.common.attributes"/>
>          <ref name="db.common.linking.attributes"/>
>        </interleave>
>      </define>
>      <define name="db.literal">
>        <element name="literal">
>          <a:documentation>Inline text that is some literal
> value</a:documentation>
>          <ref name="db.literal.attlist"/>
>          <ref name="db._text"/>
>        </element>
>
> Is this a docbook omission?
>
> regards
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...

[Dave Pawson]

On 04/09/09 17:28, Dick Hamilton wrote:
> Dave,
>
> role is a valid attribute on literal and is a common
> attribute.

> Since role is user-defined, creating separate names for
> each element lets customizers define the contents of
> role independently for different elements.
>
> So, it's a common attribute by virtue of being common,
> but is defined separate from db.common.attributes so
> that it can be customized.

So it is a tdg omission then?


Thanks Dick, I'll look for it in the new edition!



regards

--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...

[Norman Walsh]

Dave Pawson <davep@...> writes:

> On 04/09/09 17:28, Dick Hamilton wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> role is a valid attribute on literal and is a common
>> attribute.
>
>> Since role is user-defined, creating separate names for
>> each element lets customizers define the contents of
>> role independently for different elements.
>>
>> So, it's a common attribute by virtue of being common,
>> but is defined separate from db.common.attributes so
>> that it can be customized.
>
> So it is a tdg omission then?

Well. At the very least, it's not very clear :-)

  http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch05.html#ch05-classrole

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norman Walsh <ndw@...> | Men are more like the times they live
http://nwalsh.com/            | in than they are like their
                              | fathers.--Ali Ibn-abi-talib

[Dave Pawson]

On 05/09/09 12:59, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Dave Pawson<davep@...>  writes:
>

>>> role is a valid attribute on literal and is a common
>>> attribute.

>> So it is a tdg omission then?
>
> Well. At the very least, it's not very clear :-)
>
>    http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch05.html#ch05-classrole
>
>                                          Be seeing you,
>                                            norm
>

OK. Mmm. My problem I guess. I'd always noted odd
'omissions' in tdg, but assumed the content accurate.
Noting it wasn't showing at
http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/literal.html

I presumed it not valid.

Is it  one of those 'common' 'common' groupings?
Perhaps visible off
http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ref-elements.html#common.attributes

Request that it be shown, if 'doable' please?

TIA

regards

--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...

[Richard Hamilton-2]

I'll put that on the list of things to clarify
as we work on the next edition.

Dick

---------------------------------
XML Press
XML for Technical Communicators
http://xmlpress.net
[phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@...]
> Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:00 AM
> To: Dave Pawson
> Cc: Dick Hamilton; 'docbook'
> Subject: [docbook] Re: literal element db v5
>
>
> Dave Pawson <davep@...> writes:
>
> > On 04/09/09 17:28, Dick Hamilton wrote:
> >> Dave,
> >>
> >> role is a valid attribute on literal and is a common
> >> attribute.
> >
> >> Since role is user-defined, creating separate names for
> >> each element lets customizers define the contents of
> >> role independently for different elements.
> >>
> >> So, it's a common attribute by virtue of being common,
> >> but is defined separate from db.common.attributes so
> >> that it can be customized.
> >
> > So it is a tdg omission then?
>
> Well. At the very least, it's not very clear :-)
>

  http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch05.html#ch05-classrole

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norman Walsh <ndw@...> | Men are more like the times they live
http://nwalsh.com/            | in than they are like their
                              | fathers.--Ali Ibn-abi-talib



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...

[Norman Walsh]

Dave Pawson <davep@...> writes:
> OK. Mmm. My problem I guess. I'd always noted odd
> 'omissions' in tdg, but assumed the content accurate.
> Noting it wasn't showing at
> http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/literal.html

It doesn't show directly, but if you click through to "common attributes",
you'll find it listed.

> Is it  one of those 'common' 'common' groupings?
> Perhaps visible off
> http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ref-elements.html#common.attributes
>
> Request that it be shown, if 'doable' please?

Listing all 20 common attributes on every page would be confusing, I
think, and it would really hide the "unique" attributes on those
elements that have them.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norman Walsh <ndw@...> | Some people tell you you should not
http://nwalsh.com/            | drink claret after strawberries. They
                              | are wrong.--William Maginn

[Dave Pawson]

On 08/09/09 14:09, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Dave Pawson<davep@...>  writes:
>> OK. Mmm. My problem I guess. I'd always noted odd
>> 'omissions' in tdg, but assumed the content accurate.
>> Noting it wasn't showing at
>> http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/literal.html
>
> It doesn't show directly, but if you click through to "common attributes",
> you'll find it listed.

RTFM Pawson!

Sorry Norm. Yes it's there.
Yet another 'duh' moment.


Sorry to waste bandwidth




regards

--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...