Re: [docbook] DocBook Assemblies: is xml:lang considered in <structure>?

[Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de>]

Hi Bob,

thanks for your answer.

On 20.04.23 20:41, Bob Stayton wrote:
> [...]
> Indeed, the xml:lang on structure should be carried into the output because
> there is no other way to set that attribute on the root element. That is an
> oversight.

Thanks for your confirmation!

I've created a pull request that takes into account the xml:lang attribute:

  https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/pull/255


> The <output> element is not appropriate because its intended to alter the
> behavior of the assembly transformation, not insert additional content. So the
> answer to question #1 is that xml:lang on output will have no effect so there
> is no conflict.

Ok, thanks, I agree, that wouldn't be an appropriate place.

Sorry, but I have additional question regarding xml:lang and other attributes:

1. If xml:lang has no effect, other productivity attributes have probably also
   no effect.
   Shouldn't that be reflected in the assembly schema?

2. On a second thought, would it make sense to consider assembly/@xml:lang
   if structure/@xml:lang is not available?


> Regarding injecting other attributes (question #2), that is not currently a
> feature defined for assemblies. Most attributes should reside in the resource
> xml, not specified in the assembly. Attributes like role and os should reside
> in the resource XML file, it seems to me. Defining those on the fly at
> assembly time is not a use case I can imagine.

In my humble opinion, there are some use cases I can imagine. :)

For example, if you want to change some attributes for profiling reasons. The
original module could have A, but in your assembly you would like to add B. Or
change it completely. Or you would like to correct an original class attribute.
Or if authors really want to change the role, why shouldn't they?

I'm sorry, but that seems to me quite limiting. Especially if assemblies uses
the idea of "mix and merge". :)

It might be debatable if this feature is a "core feature" or something that
should be left to a customization.


> That said, the DocBook TC could not imagine all the ways that people might use
> assemblies. The assembly stylesheet can be customized to insert attributes if
> you need that.

True, that's always an option. However, if Assemblies advertises itself as a
tool for topic oriented writing, I would expect that it supports at least
certain features. I agree, the DocBook TC can not support all and everything.
But in my view, copying attributes over should be a core feature (and is one of
the benefits).


Thank you for your thoughts and ideas!


--
GruÃ/Regards
  Thomas Schraitle