dita — archive

Re: Values for @status on

From: Eliot Kimber
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:53:00 -0000

Actually, reviewing the @status attribute in the spec, I think it needs to remain as it is as it’s a general metadata attribute. The @disposition attribute, as Zoe points out, is what we are looking for and it already allows any value. Here’s the definition of @disposition: @disposition: Specifies the status of the draft comment. I’m not sure I’ve ever thought about this attribute before (I haven’t used draft comments that much). But in the context of our Content Fusion reviews where we are using <draft-comment> it looks like @disposition is the place to record the disposition status of the comment. I would amend the current definition of @disposition to be something like: Specifies the disposition of the draft comment in the context of some review process, i.e., “open”, “pending”, “resolved”, etc. Cheers, E. _____________________________________________ Eliot Kimber Sr Staff Content Engineer O: 512 554 9368 M: 512 554 9368 servicenow.com LinkedIn Twitter YouTube Facebook From: Zoe Lawson <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:45 AM To: Eliot Kimber <[email protected]>, kris eberleinconsulting.com <[email protected]>, DITA Technical Committee ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Values for @status on <draft-comment> [External Email] How does @disposition interact with @status? Why are there both? (There's probably a really good reason, I'm just ignorant.) I am fine with making @status unrestricted. Zoë Lawson (she/her) From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Eliot Kimber <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 9:36:27 AM To: kris eberleinconsulting.com <[email protected]>; DITA Technical Committee ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: [dita] Re: Values for @status on <draft-comment> I can’t see a reason to not allow unrestricted values. The declaration should be NMTOKEN if the intent is to allow any single keyword value. I can definitely see wanting values like “resolved”, “under-review”, “rejected”, etc.—the usual review workflow states and status values. Cheers, E. _____________________________________________ Eliot Kimber Sr Staff Content Engineer O: 512 554 9368 M: 512 554 9368 servicenow.com LinkedIn Twitter YouTube Facebook From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of kris eberleinconsulting.com <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 5:04 AM To: DITA Technical Committee ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: [dita] Values for @status on <draft-comment> [External Email] The values for @status on <draft-comment> are currently limited to the following: changed deleted new unchanged -dita-use-conref-target This seems unnecessarily limiting. Is there a reason that we should not change to PCDATA? Also, is this limited set of tokens what is permitted for @status on other elements? How many of you all are aware of DITA implementations that have used @status? Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Owner, Eberlein Consulting LLC [email protected] Skype: kriseberlein; voice: +1 (919) 622-1501