Kimber, Eliot wrote:
> Kimber, Eliot wrote:
> > I think that the description should be extended to include "p" in the
> > list that is currently "list item, definition, or parameter definition",
> > given that each of these is, logically, a specialization of paragraph
> > (even though they aren't necessarily literally specializations of <p>).
>
> Also, itemgroup doesn't allow itemgroup, which is something of a problem
> as well, since it means you can't implement this pattern:
Actually, thinking about it more, it seems like it might make more sense
to allow <ph> to include anything allowed as a child of <p>. That is,
one can argue that <p>Text <fig/> text</p> should be directly
replaceable by <p><ph>Text <fig/> Text</ph></p>.
In other words, allowing things like <fig> and <ol> as children of para
but not as children of children of para seems rather arbitrary and
inconsistent as well, at the architecture level.
Obviously, for specific applications, you might very well might want to
restrict your specializations of <ph> but I don't think the base
architecture should do so.
But given the exiting design, it's probably inappropriate to drastically
relax the content model of <ph>, which again points to providing a new
generic wrapper whose content model is the same as <p>.
Hmmm.
Cheers,
Eliot
--
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759
(214) 954-5198
www.innodata-isogen.com
