I agree with this completely. Over on our side, we have "extended"
HTML a little for our needs, which, amongst other things, included the
ability to share information at a structure level (for example, my chapter
2 is actually your chapter 7 or even your section 5).
However, we wanted "compatibility" with HTML so that we can share the vast
amount of resources available there.
We had a hard time with <P> basically because it's not a container in
HTML but should be one in our case.
:) <!ENTITY % h1contents (h1title,(A|P|H2|%text;|....)+)>
:) <!-- this sketch only serves to demonstrate
:) that H2 elements would nest in H1 elements. -->
:) <!ENTITY % h1contents (title,(A|P|H2|%text;|....)+)>
:) <!-- with a generic title element -->
:) which is much nicer, which - again - illustrates the desirability of
:) using container rather than sequencing everything.
However, you'll loose the ability to utilize old HTML documents which
are already out there, wouldn't you? since your "H1" is now a container
for both the TITLE and the rest of the "sub-document" (similarly for
What we did was to define it this way:
<!ELEMENT HD1 - - ( H1,(%s.zz|HD2)*) -- part -->
-- [Daneel Pang] | A well adjusted person is one who makes the same firstname.lastname@example.org | mistakes twice without geting nervous. (65)772-0517 | mistakes twice without geting nervous.