Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Dave Pawson <> was heard to say:
> | I wonder what the original reason was, unless it was M$ type of pressure
> | to have everything everywhere.
>
> See http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/para.html :-)
>
> But more helpfully, consider the following example:
>
> There are times when it may be necessary to frob the foobar. These
> can be summarized as follows:
>
> <some table goes here>
>
> where anything that falls outside the boundaries of column 1 must
> be considered an error.
>
> Logically, that's a single paragraph with a table in the middle. To
> mark that up as two paragraphs with a table in between fails to
> capture what the author intended.
>
> Years of struggling with HTML has mostly trained me not to write that
> way, or not to worry about the mangled markup that results from making
> that three sibling elements, but it's still a rational markup model.
I'm probably being 'too strict' /picky, but two paragraphs and a table
seems right to me (and is what I'd do).
Just an observation.
If the current simpara content had been in para and a new
'messy' / complex model presented (complexpara for want of a better
name) then I'd have ignored complexpara and used the para.
That would allow both options and let the simpler model be used too.
[Or I could start using docbook-- with the content model of simpara
substituted for para]
OK Norm, I'll let this one go.
regards
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
