Re: Errors in spec topic for lomTechRequirement element

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/ )