Re: [dita-translation] Introduction of <surface-form> to the acronymproposal

[Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com]

Andrzej Zydron - XML-INTL <azydron@xml-intl.com>
wrote on 15/08/2007 05:10:01 AM:

> Subsequent to the TC discussion yesterday I have updated the proposal
> accordingly:
> 
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/TranslationSubcommittee/Acronyms
> 
> The main point has been the addition of the <surface-form> element,
and 
> the modification of the relevant text. I have also copied Don's 
> excellent  'Acronym and Translation' list into the proposal as
it 
> defines succinctly the issues involved. I hope we are now very close
to 
> full agreement on the acronym proposal.

The choice of elements to specialize
from still needs work, I think.

The current proposal says:
<acronym>  ==> specialize
from keyword
  <expanded/>  ==>
specialize from keyword
  <short/>  ==> specialize
from data
  <surface-form/>  ==>
specialize from keyword
</acronym>

The justification of using <data>
is that non-acronym-aware processors will ignore <data> and just
copy the <keyword> element(s) verbatim (likewise the generalize-during-conref
example that JoAnn forwarded today).  Now we have two keywords, <expanded>
and <surface-form>.  Non-acronym-aware processors will probably
produce output like "Anti-lock Braking SystemAnti-lock Braking System
(ABS)", not what we want.

Speaking of using <data>: the
content model of <data> is quite restrictive.  Are we certain
that it's capable of representing all possible short forms?  I'm thinking
of examples where short forms contain a mixture of upright and italics,
or pathological use of typography (such as L<sup>A</sup>T<sub>E</sub>X
for the typesetting tool).

-- 
Deborah Pickett
Information Architect, Moldflow Corporation, Melbourne
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com