Re: [dita-help] Feedback on latest 13060/13061 Stage-3 Proposals

Dear Stan 

With regard to the issue of <element> and @attribute conventions, I don't know which is correct. The existing Arch Spec mixes both. In general, it seems to different in the Lang Ref section to elsewhere. So changing these might be a waste of time. I have also marked them up as <synph>, but am not sure if this is how it's done elsewhere. My feeling is that this will have to be sorted out in an editing process later in the show.

----
On the matter of 13061:

With regards to the approved technical requirements, I don't think we can change that because it's a record of what was approved in Stage 2, isn't it? Now as I see it, ua-window could either be defined in map.mod or in its own module. I am completely out of my depth here (and don't believe it should be our decision anyway), but my guess is that the change should be added to maps.mod. That's what I've done in the proposal. 

And that's how I interpreted our approved technical requirement statement of "if implemented as a specialization...". It could be part of the base, or it could be some (domain) specialization. Now, if indeed we are stating what the previously "approved technical specification" was, this Stage 3 proposal is suggesting it be implemented in the base map.mod, and we are saying that in the Modified DTD section.

The same sort of thing applies to the next point about processing specifics are outside the scope of this proposal. I agreed with you. But we did mention them in the previous proposal, and the template text for the "Approved technical requirements" section is "Provide a synopsis of the technical requirements as presented in the stage 2 proposal.", so we can't really change that. Likewise the mention of HTMLAnchorElement.target. We didn't mention it earlier, so we can't add it now. 

We only mention <ua-context> in this Stage 3 proposal in that "Approved technical requirements" section, and I'm not sure what the best way to address this is. So I have added a Note that ua-context was subsequently changed to resourceid expansion.

With regard to the question of whether <ua-window> should be within <topicmeta>, I think it needs to be directly under map because topicmeta is permitted inside a topicref, and there would be confusion if a window was associated with a topic. A window belongs to the map as a whole, and should only be defined as a child of map. 

With regard to whether left, top, right, height default to pixels, I've added the following (which is the same as for the image element):