Hmm, good thought, thanks. I suppose something like <para> is the most generic as far as containers go. Unfortunately it's not itself a valid direct child of <bookinfo>, so I would have to create two levels of wrappers.
Anyway, you've given me something to chew on. Thanks. From: Bob Stayton [mailto:b...@sagehill.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:38 AM To: Cavicchio, Rob; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [docbook] <revhistory> general content Hi, You could try putting the revhistory inside some other element that also contains the general info. I think revhistory has several possible parents. Then customize the revhistory template to check its parent, maybe using a role attribute on the parent. Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises b...@sagehill.net<mailto:b...@sagehill.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: rob.cavicc...@emc.com<mailto:rob.cavicc...@emc.com> To: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:docbook@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:17 AM Subject: [docbook] <revhistory> general content I'm looking for some ideas on how best to handle a markup conundrum. I am using DocBook 4.5. I would like to be able to include content inside <revhistory> that is not specific to any one revision. (We want to provide some general information about how to read the revision history.) I would prefer to work strictly within the DocBook 4.5 content model and not add custom elements. However, the DocBook 4.5 content model does not allow for anything inside <revhistory> other than <revision> elements. Does anyone see a semantically appropriate way to do what I want without extending the content model? ************************* Rob Cavicchio Principal Technical Writer & Information Architect EMC Captiva Information Intelligence Group EMC Corporation 3721 Valley Centre Drive, Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92130 P: (858) 320-1208 F: (858) 320-1010 E: rob.cavicc...@emc.com The opinions expressed here are my personal opinions. Content published here is not read or approved in advance by EMC and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of EMC.
