dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] figgroup: whither <data>?
- From: Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com
- To: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:54:05 +1000
But of course. I don't want to
get in the way of pushing 1.1 out the door. Besides, I may have forgotten
one or more elements in my list.
--
Deborah Pickett
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com
Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
2007-01-24 03.16
|
To
| Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com
|
cc
| dita@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Subject
| Re: [dita] figgroup: whither <data>? |
|
OK if we defer to 1.2? I'm wary of touching the DTDs/Schemas at this stage
for 1.1.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com
01/18/2007 09:36 PM
|
To
| dita@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [dita] figgroup: whither <data>? |
|
This looks like an oversight...
The content model for figgroup is just enough to allow for the one specialization
of it that DITA ships with: syntax diagrams.
<!ELEMENT figgroup ((%title;)?,
(%figgroup; | %xref; | %fn; | %ph; |
%keyword;)* )
>
Conspicuously missing from that list are state, term, data and foreign
(perhaps also boolean, indexterm and foreign). Granted, these could
be wrapped in a ph, but the extra level of wrapping isn't always sensible
in the context of a specialization.
I'd like to see at least the four basic elements state, term, data and
foreign included into figgroup's content model, befitting its role as a
base for specializations.
--
Deborah Pickett
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]