dita-lightweight-dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Footnote desired in LW DITA?
- From: "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: Don Day <donday@donrday.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 15:30:43 -0500
Hi Jan,
I agree with Don that this is the right
way to communicate it - what the list is for.
I also fully expected that as the different
focus areas developed out specializations to test the architecture we'd
find gaps - so this is normal and expected, and why we're waiting for each
group's specialization work to complete before finalizing a spec for topic
and map.
All that said, the one question I've
got about footnote is whether it's a useful requirement going forward,
or only for legacy materials. The marketing folks I had talked with about
footnote at IBM (and we had some examples) thought that it would be better
not to have the footnote going forward.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
From:
Don Day <donday@donrday.com>
To:
dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:
04/01/2016 03:28 PM
Subject:
Re: [dita-lightweight-dita]
Footnote desired in LW DITA?
Sent by:
<dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Jan, this list IS a sounding board for ideas. Our discussion
format is less rigorous than an RFE or RFC item, and Michael tends to use
a consensus approach to closure on things. With that, let the debate begin.
And after thinking at length about how HTML5's <footnote> element
might inform on content model, I realized finally that your question may
have been about current DITA's <fn> element, which is not yet in
lightweight DITA. This element IS an archetype-level element that finds
many uses in specializations. As we look to adding things back in later
on in the LwD process, I agree that this element deserves consideration.
When I think of a topic architecture, I look for structures that underpin
many common instances. Is a particular item an instance, or an archetype
or architectural feature? The archetypes and architectural features go
into the core, the instances go into the specializations.
<fn> and <indexterm> (a bird of a feather) are archetypes that
uniquely contain relocatable content. Generally we place these elements
inline for context but render their content elsewhere (contrasted with
referenceable content, content from elsewhere that gets rendered
at the point of reference). I think they are essential in a full implementation.
Granted, it is hard to train writers to think of content as objects rather
than instances, but this is a case where indirection provides great capability
for the types of queries and renditions that will drive future content
delivery.
So if this is the case of "footnote" that you requested, then
I am fully with you. I suspect that Michael will refocus on the adequateness
of inner content models once we finish the overall structure.
--
Don
R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee
LinkedIn: donrday Twitter:
@donrday
About.me: Don
R. Day Skype: don.r.day
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
On 3/30/2016 5:01 AM, Jan Benedictus wrote:
HI all.
While migrating sample content to Lw DITA to test the new Marketing specialization,
we ran into the limitation that there is no footnote in the schema. I understand
that 'scope-creep' is always a risk, but still it feels that a footnote
is a pretty versatile requirement? It wouldn t feel logical to put this
in a specialization?
I am not sure if this is the right way to express such findings, so my
second question is more procedure-related: what is the correct way to communicate
such RFC's?
Cheers!
Jan
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]