Steve,
I must be missing something, but if
there were an equivalence between
ul unorderedlist
li listitem
why wouldn't <ul><li>Item
1</li><li>Item 2</li></ul>
work in DocBook?
Or are you saying that in HTML,
<ul><li>Item 1</
li><li>Item 2</li></ul>
with the split </
li> tag (with an extra space in
it, no less), will work, even though it won't work in DocBook?
BTW, While DITA uses <p>, <ul>
etc. for paragraph, list etc. elements, it certainly also has restrictions
on them that HTML doesn't; new DITA users just have to learn them. It
doesn't seem to have been a real problem.
just a thought.
____
Nancy Harrison
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 781-676-2535
Steven Cogorno <>
Sent by:
07/21/2006 01:49 PM
To
Scott Hudson <>
cc
Subject
Re: [docbook-tc] align common
elements?
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
