dita — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
Updated Strategy for DITA 1.2 Proposal 12020 (Reuse of small text)
I've already said why I think it's a mistake to consider <keyword> generic and without semantics. I won't repeat myself. But, in the interests of moving the proposal forward, I'll upload a version of proposal #12020 that more closely matches what you want.
There are still two base elements (<term> and <tm>) which allow only straight #PCDATA. I contend that these should take <text> and not <keyword> into their content models because otherwise you could have a <tm> containing a <keyword> containing a <tm> containing a ... and I don't think that's good design.
There are still a couple of dozen elements in DITA standard domains which allow neither <ph> nor <keyword>. They are listed in the proposal.
--
Deborah Pickett
Information Architect, Moldflow Corporation, Melbourne
[email protected]
| Michael Priestley <[email protected]>
19/09/2007 01:50 AM |
|
This would add <text> to a lot of different contexts, which is exactly what I didn't want, since it has no semantics tied to it, and if we add semantics to it then we have yet another phrase-level ancestor with nothing to choose between it vs. ph/keyword.
My proposal was to add <text> to <ph> and <keyword> (and their specializations) only, so it is always in a context that can be (or has been) specialized to provide semantics. This would allow reuse below the <ph> or <keyword> level without adding yet another peer element that competes with them as a specialization ancestor.
Most contexts that allow PCDATA should already allow either <keyword> or <ph> or both - if we find a case that doesn't, I'd suggest adding whichever makes sense, but NOT adding <text> itself.
Michael Priestley
Lead IBM DITA Architect
[email protected]
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
| Stan Doherty <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 09/11/2007 07:25 AM
|
|
Hi Paul --
You are correct. Deborah Pickett has drafted a proposal (attached) for
TC and offline discussion. If the sentiment of the TC is to proceed with
her proposal as the foundation for ongoing discussion (my
recommendation), Deborah or I will upload the XML as an official
proposal for 12020.
Many many thanks to Deborah for jumping in here.
Stan
Grosso, Paul wrote:
> I'll reply to this message, though I have also seen some later ones.
>
> I think we will need to see an actual new proposal before we'll
> be able to make any progress on this. As it stands, I still
> don't have a good idea what is being proposed.
>
> paul
>
>
>>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]