RE: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA

We modified this proposal slightly during
discussion - the new proposal is as follows:

1. Add <note> as a new block-level
element, available in all block contexts

2. Set its type attribute to be optional,
and allow only the following values: caution,
warning, danger, trouble, notice
If no value is set, then it will default
to standard note processing. We decided this was preferable to providing
an explicit "note" value, because it made it easier to create
a simple note element with no attribute value using a plain editor.

4. Set its content model to simple-blocks,
which is to be the new common model for elements in table cells, notes,
and footnotes, per my previous note on fn.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist

http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley

From:      
 Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
To:      
 Ullakaisa Kalander
<>
Cc:      
 ""
<>
Date:      
 05/10/2016 10:12 AM
Subject:    
   RE: [dita-lightweight-dita]
Notes in Lightweight DITA
Sent by:    
   <>

OK so I think we've got pretty clear
direction on using the existing <note> element from full DITA, with
some constraints.

I'll propose:

element name: note
type attribute: caution, warning, danger,
trouble, notice, note (default)
content model: same as table-blocks: 
<!ENTITY % table-blocks  "p|ul|ol|dl|pre|audio|video">

If we agree with this, do we need to rename table-blocks to something like
simple-blocks to make it more generic?

I've added an explicit "note" value for the type attribute, rather
than having the "note" type value be implied by no selection,
because I recalled that it in some editors it's hard to get back to no
selection once something is selected - so if someone wanted to change from
"notice" to "note", for example, they'd need an explicit
"note" value to select. This was a while ago though and I'm open
to getting rid of it if there's no editor concerns.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist

http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley

From:        Ullakaisa
Kalander <>
To:        ""
<>
Date:        05/10/2016
02:39 AM
Subject:        RE:
[dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
Sent by:        <>

I gathered feedback about the note options from a couple of key persons
involved in our LW DITA project, each having their own angle on the subject
(one DITA & technology expert, one software developer, one other information
architect): 100% behind Option #1.
 
Ullakaisa Kalander
Information Architect, Information Services
Citec Oy Ab
E-mail: 
www.citec.com

From:  [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Carlos Evia
Sent: 09 May 2016 16:14
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
 
And here’s another vote for option 1
 
Carlos
--- 
Carlos Evia, Ph.D.
Director of Professional and Technical Writing
Associate Professor of Technical Communication
Department of English
Center for Human-Computer Interaction
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112
(540)200-8201
 
 
 
 
 
On May 7, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Noz Urbina <>
wrote:
 
I'm with Scott for option 1. Same reasons. But I am torn on my second choice.
My instinct says 3 but that's just my gut. 
On 6 May 2016 9:52 p.m., "Scott Hudson" <>
wrote:
I vote Option 1 for consistency in authoring between full and lightweight.
I think the other options differ too much from full DITA and could lead
to potential confusion.
 
Close second for Option 2, as I could see potential use for hazard-statements
where the hazard symbol could be contained in a dt and the body of the
hazard statement in the dd.
 
I still prefer Option 1 though.
 
Thanks and best regards,
 
--Scott
 
Scott Hudson
Content Strategist
Training & Documentation
Global Services & Support
<image001.jpg>
Jeppesen  |Digital Aviation  |Boeing

55 Inverness Drive East |
Englewood, CO 80112
| www.jeppesen.com
 
 
 
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 1:46 PM
To: 
Subject: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
 
We discussed a number of options in our last SC call - feedback/suggestions/votes
needed to help us move forward.

Option 1: We implement <note>just as in full DITA, but with a
subset of potential values - eg caution, warning, danger, trouble, notice,
or no type (generic "note") and a constrained content model (maybe
just <p>, <ul>, or <ol>)

Option 2: We implement <notelist> (or some other name slightly
different from <note>) as a specialization of <dl> with a <dlentry>
representing a note. The text of the <dlterm> could trigger specialized
behaviors (if it's from the short list like caution, warning, etc.) or
be passed through as is (if it's not recognized by either default or override
processes)

Option 3: We implement <note-type>as a specialized phrase element
(specialized off of either <ph> or <b>) available in any <p>
that turns the <p> into a note. As with the dlentry option, the type
of the note would be entered as text that could trigger specialized behaviors
if recognized, or be used to apply a custom label.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist

http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley