On 8/20/09 12:24 PM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> wrote:
> This came up in the spec authoring meeting today.
>
> The problem: <glossentry> is specialized from <concept>. <task>,
> <concept>, and <reference> are in the TechDocs package. This forces
> <glossentry> etc. to be restricted to the TD package. But non-TechDocs
> folks need glossaries, and support for them should be in the base.
>
> Two solutions:
>
> 1. Accept this. Present it as an unfortunate fait accompli for 1.2
> -- if you want a glossary, you have to use the TD package (or specialize
> your own).
> 2. Move <task>, <concept>, and <reference> back into the base, sans
> TD-specific domain specializations, and include those specializations in
> the TD package. Present this as an interim step toward simplified topics
> being developed by the BusDocs SC.
>
> Comment? Action?
I prefer option 2: there's nothing obvious about glossentry that is specific
to technical content and in fact glossentry should never have been based on
concept. Since it was, and we can't change that now, I think it strongly
indicates that concept, task, and reference need to stay in base,
unfortunately.
But I could live with 1.
Cheers,
E.
----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email: <mailto:>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
