Hi,
On 30.11.22 00:48, Richard Hamilton wrote:
I’ve run into the same thing. I have a separate file for our book info, so that
I can move the copyright page to the back of the book for ebooks.
I am lazy, however, and just ignore the errors when I’m editing the info
page:-). I essentially do what Norm mentioned; that is, only pay attention to
validation when the block is included in a book.
That's possible and probably all okay for your use case. But I think this is a
bit dangerous territory as it isn't suitable as a general practice. It creates
the wrong attitude. ;)
It might be totally okay for a single person if you are working on your own.
However, I don't think it would be okay for a group of writers. I can't say:
"Validation is king. Trust it. But ignore it here." Soon nobody trusts (or
wants) validation anymore.
IMHO, this is not a real technical issue (which could be theoretically solved
by adding <info> to the list of start elements) but I suppose it's more of a
psychological factor. I fear, it would in a way undermine the trust of our
toolchain. Plus it creates some more burden on writers to dissect when to
ignore errors and when not.
The other thing you could do, if you’re using xinclude, is to put the info
block into a valid root element, so you can validate it, then use xinclude to
include just the info element when you build a deliverable.
Yes, technically possible, but still a restriction. Additionally, I'm forced to
add an XPointer expression into the <xi:include> element just to select the
info. Sounds like a detour to me. :)
I’m not sure how doable that is with assemblies.
That's why I wrote another post (see "State of topic oriented writing in
DocBook?") which reflects on this part. I hope it's not considered as a raunchy
rant. ;)
--
Gruß/Regards
Thomas Schraitle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
