docbook writers: please no empty para's

Lauri Watts lauri at
Thu Feb 16 13:06:48 GMT 2006

On Thursday 16 February 2006 11:33, Erik K. Pedersen wrote:
> Torsdag den 16. februar 2006 07:28 skrev Lauri Watts:
> > On Wednesday 15 February 2006 22:24, Erik K. Pedersen wrote:
> > > With "to be written" it is ok
> >
> > It's ok from a "makes the docbook compile" point of view.  From a useful
> > documentation for users to read, it's _horrible_
> I guess I would agree with that, would it not be a solution not to write
> <para></para> ?

That's not valid either, in fact, that's the reason for most of the empty 
para's showing up: people put placeholder chapters/sections/listitems there, 
and never write the docs to go in them, and these elements require content to 
be valid.

For the example given, you'd have to comment out the entire <listitem> (or if 
it's in a varlistentry, comment that out)

The really best solution is to fill in the para with some actual content, or 
not put empty sections in the doc in the first place.

Lauri Watts
KDE Documentation:
KDE on FreeBSD:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list