#69 Keep 'cooked' and 'raw' separated

v5.0 FU for 6.0
closed-accepted
DocBook (176)
5
2014-08-16
2001-11-17
No

Former RFE 100

Keep 'cooked' and 'raw' bibliographic metadata
separated

It is currently possible to mix "raw" and "cooked"
bibliographic metadata.
The content models should be adjusted so that this is
no longer possible.

2 April 1999:

To: docbook-eb@oasis-open.org
Subject: Bibliographic Elements issues
Cc: tallen@bolt.sonic.net
Status: RO

>From some time back:
| Terry and I had a brief discussion about this
recently. We need to
| hash it out.
|
| 1. Cooked and raw entries should be kept apart to
maintain reasonable
| processing expectations. I think therefore that
BiblioSet should
| _not_ be in %bibliocomponent.mix;. (Having it
there allows BiblioSet
| in BiblioMSet.)

(%bibliocomponent.mix; is part of the content model of
BiblioEntry,
and also of BiblioSet and BiblioMSet.) I agree. We
should remove
BiblioSet from %bibliocomponent.mix, and add it
directly to the content
model of BiblioEntry; compare the treatment of
BiblioMSet in BiblioMixed.

If there's no objection I'll write up an RFE.

| 2. Should BibliMisc really contain %para.char.mix?

%para.char.mix; is broader than is needed, but I think
this is a
symptom of our need to remodularize, so I'd leave it
alone for now.

Discussion

  • Norman Walsh

    Norman Walsh - 2001-11-30
    • status: open --> closed-accepted
     
  • Norman Walsh

    Norman Walsh - 2002-01-31
    • status: closed-accepted --> pending-accepted
     
  • Norman Walsh

    Norman Walsh - 2002-01-31
    • status: pending-accepted --> open-accepted
     
  • Norman Walsh

    Norman Walsh - 2002-01-31
    • status: open-accepted --> closed-accepted
     

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks