On Jul 21, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Scott Hudson wrote:
> That is something that may need to be worked out in the
> interoperability forum, but I think even Norm has lamented in the
> past about the decision to use "para" instead of "p"...
>
> I imagine some of the alignment would be more along the HTML/DITA
> line, such as:
> para = p
> itemizedlist = ul
> orderedlist = ol
> listitem = li
Oh no -- I definitely oppose changing them to HTML names. This gives
people the impression that a DocBook <p> would let them do the same
things that an HTML <p> would do. Example: <ul><li>Item 1</
li><li>Item 2</li></ul> Obviously that isn't going to work.
Since the elements can't work the same way as HTML elements, what
would be the advantage of using the same names? It wouldn't make
interop any easier anyway because of the content model differences.
-Steve
