Here is a list of the elements that example could be contained by (by scenario):
<example> akin to <fig>:
<abstract> , <body> , <bodydiv> , <dd> , <div> , <draft-comment> , <entry> , <example> , <fn> , <itemgroup> , <li> , <lq> , <note> , <p> , <section> , <sectiondiv> , <stentry>
<pd>
<conbody>
add @type="example" to <note>:
<abstract> , <body> , <bodydiv> , <dd> , <desc> , <div> , <draft-comment> , <entry> , <example> , <fig> , <figgroup> , <fn> , <itemgroup> , <li> , <linkinfo> , <lq> , <p> , <section> , <sectiondiv> , <stentry>
<equation-figure> , <pd>
<conbody>
<example> akin to <div>:
<abstract> , <body> , <bodydiv> , <dd> , <desc> , <div> , <draft-comment> , <entry> , <example> , <fig> , <figgroup> , <fn> , <itemgroup> , <li> , <linkinfo> , <lq> , <note> , <p> , <section> , <sectiondiv> , <stentry>
<equation-figure> , <pd>
<conbody>
<example> today:
<body> , <conbody> , <conbodydiv> , <refbody> , <refbodydiv> , <taskbody>
I'm not seeing a lot of location differences between the proposed options.
I'd still prefer to have <example> available in these locations, and prefer the actual element to adding a note @type.
For the Stage 1 proposal, I'm not suggesting that we change <example> to be specialized from <fig> or <div>, but add it to the same locations, keeping the existing locations where it is allowed today.
The content model of example would remain the same as well.
Thanks and best regards,
--Scott
Scott Hudson
Content Technology Strategist, DS&A Information and Knowledge Services
Jeppesen, A Boeing Company
55 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112
303-328-6228
Cell: 303-350-7934
http://www.jeppesen.com
