Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?

On 29 April 2016 at 07:56, Thomas Schraitle <> wrote:

>
> Although @role would be probably one solution, in that case I favor to
> extend the schema. I propose to allow <danger> for the following
> reasons:
>
> * There is a need
> * Matches well with ANSI Z535 standard
> * It's consistent with the other admonition elements
> * Aligns well with DITA if someone has to transform documents back
>   and forth
> * From a language perspective, <danger> expresses a higher risk of
>   injury and/or death than <caution> (or any other admonition elements).
>   (Maybe not useful for software documentation, but DocBook can also be
>   used in other industries where this is very much needed.)
>
>
> Does it make sense to open an RFE? That way the committee can discuss
> this in one of the next meetings?

Based on this thread, ask the committee, seems like a worthwhile RFE
with a solid user requirement.

Longer term, Bobs idea of bringing it into line might be worthwhile
putting in the parking lot for rev n+1?

regards