Re: Fwd: Recursive use of elements <option> and <optional>

Bob Stayton <> writes:
> Jürgen points out that DocBook 5 restricts the content of <option> and
> <optional> much more than DocBook 4. Indeed, DocBook 4's content
> models included the entire %tech.char.class; which had all the
> technical elements, while DocBook 5.0 and 5.1 have only a short list
> of general inline text elements. I don't see anything in the
> Transition Guide about this change. Does anyone recall why we did
> this, and if there is an alternative way of expressing complex syntax
> examples?

No. It seems quite possible that this was an unintended consequence of
tightening up the models generally.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <> | To think is not enough; you must think
http://nwalsh.com/            | of something.--Jules Renard