[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita-comment] 1.3 troubleshooting topic permits empty remedy element?
Thanks Bob,
The problem is that the inner task allows further an inner topic rather than task (the other information types allow embedding the same type further, any other task allows embedding a task not a topic).
Best Regards,
George
--
George Cristian Bina
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com
On 01/04/15 16:59, Bob Thomas wrote:
Hi Joe,
Initially the remedy model required exactly one steps, steps-unordered,
or steps-informal element. An unfortunate side-effect of that
requirement was that remedy could not use conref content without having
a non-functioning child steps* element, which requires a step element,
which requires a cmd element (steps-informal would reduce this chain,
but how many people would think to try it?). We decided to allow empty
remedy to eliminate required children for conref. This is also why title
is optional for condition and context.
Hi George,
There were use cases where people wanted to embed an entire task topic
within troubleshooting instead of using remedy. The rationale was that
the prerequisites had to accompany the steps. This is definitely an
edge, or corner case.
Best Regards,
Bob Thomas
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Joe Pairman <joepairman@gmail.com
<mailto:joepairman@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I have a question about the DITA 1.3 troubleshooting topic, and I'm
sending it to dita-comment because I'm not sure how (if at all) this
question fits in the 1.3 review process.
Working with the experimental org.dita.troubleshooting plugin
bundled with Oxygen 16.1, I noticed something about the content
model for the remedy element. It can be empty, but if it has /any/
content, it must have one of steps, steps-unordered, or steps-informal.
Is this intentional? Might there be a situation where an empty
remedy element is useful just to hang attributes on? If not, perhaps
it would be easier all round to disallow empty remedy elements.
Here's the relevant part of the DTD; removing the trailing question
mark would disallow the empty element.
|<!— LONG NAME: Remedy —>
<!ENTITY % remedy.content
“((%title;)?, (%responsibleParty;)?,
(%steps; |
%steps-unordered; |
%steps-informal;)
)?”
>|
Thanks for any info or thoughts.
Joe
--
Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com
<mailto:bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com>) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)
--
This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC.
In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.
Subscribe: dita-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: dita-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: dita-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=dita
Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]