dita — archive

[Graydon Saunders <graydon@precisioncontent.com>]

I think it makes more sense to put <imagemap> in base. The functionality is all-of-DITA in scope and should go in base. Graydon Saunders Publishing Solutions Developer Precision Content Direct: +1 (647)265-8500 x106 Email: graydon@precisioncontent.com www.precisioncontent.com Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please notify us by return email if you have received this email in error. 2019, Precision Content Authoring Solutions Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com> Sent: 09 July 2019 15:23 To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [dita] Stage One Proposal: Change the specialization base of imagemap So we have two possibilities here: Add <imagemap> and its child elements to base -- also <sort-as> Change the specialization base for <imagemap> and area to <div> Which makes most sense? Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype) On 7/9/2019 3:14 PM, Eliot Kimber wrote: [I sent this to Zoe yesterday but had intended to send to the main list] ï<div> should be the best choice but would need to think it through: <imagemap> allows <image> and <area> <area> is currently a specialization of <figgroup>. <figgroup> is essentially the semantic equivalent to <div> so it would make sense to also make <area> a specialization of <div>. <div> allows all the elements from which the subelements of <area> are specialized, so that works. One way to evaluate a specialization design is to generalize it back to the base types and verify that the result is still valid. If it is, then the specialization meets that requirement. So using <div> for <imagemap> and <area> definitely passes that test. Then the other question is whether or not the specialization is semantically consistent with the base, which is a more subjective question. But in this case, <div> has no semantic beyond "container" so hard not to be semantically consistent with it. Ditto for <area> specialized from <div>. Cheers, E. -- Eliot Kimber http://contrext.com ïOn 7/8/19, 8:30 PM, "Zoe Lawson" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of zoelawson17@hotmail.com> wrote: Originally, <imagemap> was a specialization of <fig>. This means you cannot use an <imagemap> directly inside of a <fig>, which makes it complicated to add a title to your image. You can work around this by using a <div> inside of the <fig>, but that seems like an extra layer of complexity. If we change the specialization base of <imagemap> from <fig> to something slightly more generic such as <div>, that may simplify the adding of a title (or other content) around an <imagemap> in a <fig>. I would like some technical assistance determining which element makes the most sense to specialize from. Thanks, Zoà Lawson --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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