This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: New element for Step alternatives?
- From: Steve Cogorno <cogorno at village dot eng dot sun dot com>
- To: Bob Stayton <bobs at caldera dot com>
- Cc: Steve Cogorno <cogorno at village dot eng dot sun dot com>, Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>,docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:38:24 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: New element for Step alternatives?
Bob Stayton said:
> Just to be perfectly clear, your example would be
> coded as:
>
> <procedure>
> <step>
> <para>Create a new user account on the system.</para>
> </step>
> <step>
> <para>Set the password for this account using one of
> the following methods:</para>
> <stepalternatives>
> <step>
> <para>Using the administration GUI, select "Set Password."</para>
> </step>
> <step>
> <para>Modify the /etc/shadow file to contain the new password.</para>
> </step>
> </stepalternatives>
> </step>
> </procedure>
>
> This is the structure that I would support.
> It is very similar to substeps. The "stuff"
> in step provides the context information for
> either stepalternatives or substeps.
Exactly. In fact, we could indeed use substeps from a purely syntaxtic
standpoint (using some attribute to distinguish), but this is very unclear
to writers. We feel that using an element specifically for alternatives is
more clear for the writing community.
Steve Cogorno
Sun Microsystems