Hi Robert, Lost track of how many thanks this time.
On this, I'm tempted to skip straight to your last point and suggest making this free-form text.
That said, the values still in use are as we have them - (pc-dos ms-windows macos unix multi-os none any netscapecommunicator ms-internetexplorer opera amaya ).
The IEEE LOM also provides a "type" of "operating system or browser", which appears to be what we were attempting to do with @name in this case.
My recommendation is that we keep consistent with ourselves and use @name = lomTechRequirement, keep the same value list, and explain the operating system or browser usage in the spec description.
John ___________________________________ John Hunt Chair, OASIS DITA Learning and Training Sub-Committee Senior Technical Content Architect IBM Collaboration Solutions User Experience: Design and Information Excellence
From: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
To: dita <>
Cc: John Hunt/Cambridge/IBM
Date: 02/17/2014 11:20 PM
Subject: Errors in spec topic for lomTechRequirement element This topic has a couple of errors in the attribute table: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/langref/lomTechRequirement.html According to the spec topic, there is an erroneous default value for @name of "Operating system Browser". In both the DTD and XSD (as with every other Learning element in this domain), the default value for @name in our DTD/XSD is the name of the element: "lomTechRequirement". For @value, the default value actually matches in the DTD, XSD, and specification -- all list the available values as: (pc-dos ms-windows macos unix multi-os none any netscapecommunicator ms-internetexplorer opera amaya -dita-use-conref-target) I'm not sure of the proper resolution here. We should correct the "default" of @name to lomTechRequirement. The current "default" for @name, I think, really implies a better description of @value - something along the lines of "This attribute describes a required operating system or browser." First question is - would that be a better description for @value? Second question - should we be hard coding a list of existing applications in the specification, or should it allow for other new / unknown applications (making the attribute into a free-form CDATA field)? Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit ( http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/ )
