This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: Request for comments: adding a Fileoutput element(RFE 613293)
- From: Bob Stayton <bobs at caldera dot com>
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- Cc: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 11:56:54 -0800
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Request for comments: adding a Fileoutput element(RFE 613293)
- References: <20021128063517.GB1441@sideshowbarker> <87k7imkf0a.fsf@nwalsh.com><87r8bzfthw.fsf@nwalsh.com>
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 09:53:31AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
> | / Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org> was heard to say:
> | | 1. add a new element (for example, 'Filecontents') with a 'class'
> | | attribute and enumerated values to indicate what type of file
> | | the marked-up content is from (for example, a program file, a config
> | | file, a documentation file, etc.)[2]
> |
> | I really dislike the name 'filecontents'. For one thing, if I use
>
> - From reading the follow-ups, I get the impression that we definitely
> want to keep 'programlisting' and my idea of creating 'verbatim' was
> going to add confusion more than anything else.
>
> Some people seemed to feel that a new attribute on literallayout would
> be enough, others seemed to prefer a new element.
>
> Show of hands: who wants a new element? Who wants to just add an attribute?
>
> Let's say we're going to add a new element, it seems like the purpose
> is similar to programlisting but without the "program" semantics.
> Rather than 'filecontents', how about 'documentlisting' or
> 'filelisting'?
I think a new attribute on literallayout would be
sufficient.
--
Bob Stayton 400 Encinal Street
Publications Architect Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Technical Publications voice: (831) 427-7796
The SCO Group fax: (831) 429-1887
email: bobs@sco.com