Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [dita] Jang's DITA 2.0 proposal (Was "Re: [dita] Phase 1 proposal: expand howtoavoid")
Hello Kris,
I will be present in today’s TC meeting. My proposal was already sent to the mailing list on May 10. My mail lists all the issues, but the most important ones are #2, #3, #4.
I question the intention that the hazardstatement domain is a base for specialisation. It is specifically designed to match the requirements of the ANSI hazard statement, and that standard does not allow any deviation from the prescribed framework (4 types of hazard only and a defined content model). If people want to specialise the hazardstatement they deviate from the intention of implementing ANSI and that should be clear. This is a reason for me to propose that the hazardstatement is moved from the base to the technicalContent directory where it should have been from the start.
I am all set for the discussion if there is space on today’s agenda.
Kind regards
Jang F.M. GraatSmart Information DesignAmsterdam, NetherlandsCell: +31 646 854 996
On 26 May 2018, at 16:01, Kristen James Eberlein <> wrote:
Jang, if you want to suggest a proposal for DITA 2.0, give me a
date that you can be present at a DITA TC meeting, submit your
item to the list, and I will place it on the agenda.
Please remember that the hazard statement is intended to be an
appropriate base for specialization for many purposes.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)
On 5/26/2018 9:43 AM, Jang wrote:
I don’t think the discussion about my proposed changes can be
concluded without me being present in the meeting. There are
plenty of points where the hazardstatement implementation can and
should be improved. The fact that no one present had difficulties
does not say that the domain complies to ANSI Z535.6, which is
what it intended to do.
Jang F.M. Graat
Smart Information Design
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Cell: +31 646 854 996
On 16 May 2018, at 17:12, Kristen James
Eberlein <>
wrote:
Jang, we discussed the hazardstatement
domain at yesterday's TC meeting. No one present had
experienced any difficulties with the domain; everyone
thinks it is adequate as-is.
We did agree that expanding the content
model for <howtoavoid> would be appropriate.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)
On 5/15/2018 6:19 PM, Jang
wrote:
Hi Dawn,
This should of course be combined with
my proposal to revise the hazardstatement domain. I
can see no real objections to adding a <p>,
<ol>, <ul>. I would like to do a little
more research among users of hazardstatement to find
out which elements are actually being used and which
are missing.
Also, I would not add a <div> or a
<dl>. I would rather remove
<simpletable>. The <howtoavoid> should
really be a very short statement of avoiding an
identified danger. When <simpletable> or
<dl> is required, there is something seriously
wrong with the content that the author is trying to
cram into a <hazardstatement>.
Kind regards from Shanghai
Jang
Jang F.M. Graat
Smart Information Design
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Cell: +31 646 854 996
On 15 May 2018, at 23:58, Eliot
Kimber <>
wrote:
If you’re going to
add p you might as well add div too. I
could also see an argument for dl as an
alternative to simpletable.
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
From: <>
on behalf of Dawn Stevens <>
Date: Tuesday,
May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM
To: ""
<>
Subject: [dita]
Phase 1 proposal: expand howtoavoid
From our discussion
today, I’ve put together a Phase 1
proposal for expanding the content model
within <howtoavoid>.
I’ve never written a
Phase 1 proposal. Hopefully I have put
what is needed in it, but if I need more,
please advise.
Thanks,
Dawn
Phase
1 proposal: Add elements to
<howtoavoid>
Requirement:
An important requirement when
writing hazard statements that conform
to ISO and ANSI requirements is
providing information on how to avoid
the potential hazard. Often there are
multiple ways to avoid the problem;
however, there are currently limited
elements available to itemize these
ways. Users are forced to use <sl>
to provide multiple lines of content and
adjust their stylesheets to add bullets
or other distinguishing formatting.
We need to provide additional
block elements in the model to make it
easier to include multiple ways to
avoid.
Proposal:
The current model for
<howtoavoid> content is:
<!ENTITY %
hazard.cnt
"#PCDATA |
%basic.ph;
|
%sl; |
%simpletable;"
>
I propose adding p, ol, and ul
at a minimum to this model.
<!ENTITY %
hazard.cnt
"#PCDATA |
%basic.ph;
|
%p; |
%sl; |
%ul;
|
%ol; |
%simpletable;"
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all
your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
Next in thread →
Next in month →