dita-lightweight-dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
- From: "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: Ullakaisa Kalander <Ullakaisa.Kalander@citec.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 10:11:24 -0400
OK so I think we've got pretty clear direction
on using the existing <note> element from full DITA, with some constraints.
I'll propose:
element name: note
type attribute: caution,
warning, danger, trouble, notice,
note (default)
content model: same as table-blocks:
<!ENTITY % table-blocks "p|ul|ol|dl|pre|audio|video">
If we agree with this, do we need to
rename table-blocks to something like simple-blocks to make it more generic?
I've added an explicit "note"
value for the type attribute, rather than having the "note" type
value be implied by no selection, because I recalled that it in some editors
it's hard to get back to no selection once something is selected - so if
someone wanted to change from "notice" to "note", for
example, they'd need an explicit "note" value to select. This
was a while ago though and I'm open to getting rid of it if there's no
editor concerns.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
From:
Ullakaisa Kalander
<Ullakaisa.Kalander@citec.com>
To:
"dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org"
<dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
05/10/2016 02:39 AM
Subject:
RE: [dita-lightweight-dita]
Notes in Lightweight DITA
Sent by:
<dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
I gathered feedback about the note options
from a couple of key persons involved in our LW DITA project, each having
their own angle on the subject (one DITA & technology expert, one software
developer, one other information architect): 100% behind Option #1.
Ullakaisa Kalander
Information Architect, Information Services
Citec Oy Ab
E-mail: ullakaisa.kalander@citec.com
www.citec.com
From: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Carlos Evia
Sent: 09 May 2016 16:14
Cc: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
And here’s another vote for option
1
Carlos
---
Carlos Evia, Ph.D.
Director of Professional and
Technical Writing
Associate Professor of Technical
Communication
Department of English
Center for Human-Computer Interaction
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112
(540)200-8201
On May 7, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Noz
Urbina <b.noz.urbina@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm with Scott for option 1. Same
reasons. But I am torn on my second choice. My instinct says 3 but that's
just my gut.
On 6 May 2016 9:52 p.m., "Scott
Hudson" <scott.hudson@jeppesen.com>
wrote:
I vote Option 1 for consistency
in authoring between full and lightweight. I think the other options differ
too much from full DITA and could lead to potential confusion.
Close second for Option 2,
as I could see potential use for hazard-statements where the hazard symbol
could be contained in a dt and the body of the hazard statement in the
dd.
I still prefer Option 1 though.
Thanks and best regards,
--Scott
Scott Hudson
Content Strategist
Training & Documentation
Global Services & Support
<image001.jpg>
Jeppesen | Digital Aviation | Boeing
55 Inverness Drive East |
Englewood, CO 80112
| www.jeppesen.com
From: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org[mailto:dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 1:46 PM
To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
We discussed a number of options in our last
SC call - feedback/suggestions/votes needed to help us move forward.
Option 1: We implement <note>just as in full DITA, but with a
subset of potential values - eg caution, warning, danger, trouble, notice,
or no type (generic "note") and a constrained content model (maybe
just <p>, <ul>, or <ol>)
Option 2: We implement <notelist> (or some other name slightly
different from <note>) as a specialization of <dl> with a <dlentry>
representing a note. The text of the <dlterm> could trigger specialized
behaviors (if it's from the short list like caution, warning, etc.) or
be passed through as is (if it's not recognized by either default or override
processes)
Option 3: We implement <note-type>as a specialized phrase element
(specialized off of either <ph> or <b>) available in any <p>
that turns the <p> into a note. As with the dlentry option, the type
of the note would be entered as text that could trigger specialized behaviors
if recognized, or be used to apply a custom label.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]