Re: [dita] figgroup: whither <data>?

But of course.  I don't want to
get in the way of pushing 1.1 out the door.  Besides, I may have forgotten
one or more elements in my list.

-- 

Deborah Pickett



Michael Priestley <>

2007-01-24 03.16

To



cc



Subject

Re: [dita] figgroup: whither <data>?

OK if we defer to 1.2? I'm wary of touching the DTDs/Schemas at this stage
for 1.1. 

Michael Priestley

IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead



http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 



01/18/2007 09:36 PM

To



cc

Subject

[dita] figgroup: whither <data>?

This looks like an oversight... 

The content model for figgroup is just enough to allow for the one specialization
of it that DITA ships with: syntax diagrams. 

<!ELEMENT figgroup      ((%title;)?,

                    
   (%figgroup; | %xref; | %fn; | %ph; | 

                    
    %keyword;)* )              
               >

Conspicuously missing from that list are state, term, data and foreign
(perhaps also boolean, indexterm and foreign).  Granted, these could
be wrapped in a ph, but the extra level of wrapping isn't always sensible
in the context of a specialization. 

I'd like to see at least the four basic elements state, term, data and
foreign included into figgroup's content model, befitting its role as a
base for specializations. 

-- 

Deborah Pickett