Radu, thanks. I knew that some solution like this existed, but I could not find it documented anywhere in the docbook documentation (or more precisely I did not know how to find it). Searching for CDATA, I found something in Docbook XSL's Chapter 27 http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/ProgramListings.html Robert Nagle On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Radu Coravu <radu_coravu@sync.ro> wrote:
Hi Robert,
The error complains that the XML tag <meta> is not allowed in <code>. This is correct. If you actually want to enter some random HTML fragment inside the <code> the fragment needs to be escaped like:
<para> <code> <meta content="Home Page for Dick Solomon." name="description" /> </code></para>
or surrounded in CDATA like: <para> <code><![CDATA[ <meta content="Home Page for Dick Solomon." name="description" />]]> </code></para>
so that it gets interpreted as plain text.
Regards, Radu
-- Radu Coravu <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger http://www.oxygenxml.com
On 4/1/2010 3:38 PM, Robert Nagle wrote:
Hi,
I'm creating a docbook 5 document in the latest Oxygen, and got a strange validation error.
Here is what I wrote:
<para> <code> <meta content="Home Page for Dick Solomon." name="description" /> </code></para>
Here is the error message I receive:
SystemID: I:\My Documents\work-related\\quickguide.xml Engine name: Jing Severity: error Description: element "meta" not allowed anywhere; expected the element end-tag, text or element "alt", "anchor", "annotation", "biblioref", "classname", "exceptionname", "function", "indexterm", "initializer", "inlinemediaobject", "interfacename", "link", "methodname", "modifier", "olink", "ooclass", "ooexception", "oointerface", "parameter", "phrase", "remark", "replaceable", "returnvalue", "subscript", "superscript", "type", "varname" or "xref" Start location: 157:99
It seems that the validator is trying to process the contents of the code element when in fact the code element allows text inside it http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/code.html
Or am I missing something obvious?