Re: [docbook] Tabs and <formalgroup> content model

[Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

> From Norms comments, " ## A group of formal objects, for example subfigures"
> seems a bit off (my view), rather than 'formal objects' (I've a job
> relating to that),
> how about 'related' or 'closely related' then figures / subfigures
> matches (to me).

Perhaps.

DocBook started out with <table> for tables and they had a title. This
was back in the DTD days where you couldnât have context-dependent
content models. In order to make it possible for a customization layer
to separately constrain tables-with-a-title from tables-without-a-title,
they had to have different names. (Just making title optional wouldnât
have satisfied this requirement because it wouldnât have been possible
to say, âno, in *this* context, the title is always required.)

Consequently, we ended up with <informaltable> to identify a thing that
was a table but *didnât* have a title. You need a wrapper for that one
because the content model of a table needs a wrapper. From there, it was
a short step to <informalfigure> for a <figure> without a title, etc.

Over time, a back-formation developed: if the things that didnât have
titles were âinformalâ, then collectively, the things that *did* have
titles were âformalâ.

So we ended up with formalgroup: a group of âformalâ objects.

As a tag name, I donât think <relatedgroup> would be an improvement. And
I donât think <group> would be an improvement either because itâs too
broad.

That ship has sailed anyway. Weâre not changing its name now.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
https://norm.tovey-walsh.com/

> There is nothing new under the sun but there are lots of old things we
> don't know.--Ambrose Bierce

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature