On 12/1/22 12:30 AM, Thomas Schraitle wrote: > > You are right, the _DTD_ cannot define a start element and as such every root > element would be possible. But you miss the point. :-) > > The DTD is _not_ not used for DocBook 5 (with the exception of 5.0, but > that's > a different story). The official blessed DocBook 5 schema is written in RELAX > NG (RNG). In RNG you _can_ define start elements. This is what DocBook 5 did. > However, <info> is not part of that list. > > In other, more practical words: if you load a file which has <info> has root > element, such a file would be flagged as invalid in your XML editor if you > try > to validate it. From this thread, I think these two things are true:
Valid us cases exist for allowing more elements or even all elements to be root elements in the DocBook schema and the TC should consider it. Users should be less afraid of making a DocBook variant. The sentence in TDG "If You Change DocBook, It’s Not DocBook Anymore!" sounds a little threatening. Admittedly it introduces some overhead, probably including creating an Oxygen framework that extends the stock DocBook one and distributing it to your users as an addon, but it's not fundamentally different from customizing the xslts. Regards, David
