Hello Martin,
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:22:21PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2009-05-15 21:03, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > Well, I'm not in the details of docbook, and I can certainly use the
> > workaround albeit it is just that: a workaround. Because I don't want
> > to emphasize, I just want to quote.
> >
> > And this does not clarify the second issue.
>
> If I understand correctly, you want to have the schema definition (RNG
> or DTD) of DocBook XML changed. This is something that really should
> go to the DocBook technical committee. Maybe they can allow the same
> elements in the 'contrib' element, that are possible in 'para'.
I just want to do a proper translation. I'm not into docbook too
deeply, so I'd rather not request a "world-wide" change. If my use
case was wrong, then I'd be happy to stand corrected, especially from
a person more versed in docbook.
If, on the other hand, my first assumption regarding missing
flexibility is right I would be happy if it could be corrected.
> There is, of course, the possibility to customise DocBook (and DocBook
> was somehow designed to be customisable), but I don't really like the
> idea of Debian using a customised instead of the standard DocBook
> schema. IMHO, we already have more than enough bugs in the DocBook
> tools in their standard form to justify that.
I perfectly agree.
I guess you know much better wether docbook should be changed or if
the use case present in my translation was wrongly handled (and thus
the translation needs to be updated and no docbook changes are
actually necessary).
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann helge@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature