Re: [dita] Need Clarification on Implications of Different List MarkupPatterns

[Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>]

Hi, Gershon:

Just to sketch out some possibilities for a constrained model ...

Terminology:

• divisions = example, section
• structures = dl, ol, simpletable, table, ul
• containers = dd, entry, fig, fn, note, li, stentry
• blocks = lines, lq, p, pre
• inline = cite, keyword, ph, term, xref

Constraints:

• divisions exclude inline and text and add sequence (optional title, then any data, followed by structures and blocks)
• containers exclude inline and text (except li allows an initial ph for consistency with step)
• blocks allow only inlines and text
• image and object allowed in divisions, blocks, and containers

What do you think?


Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com


Gershon L Joseph <gershon@tech-tav.com> wrote on 02/12/2008 08:01:16 AM:

> This is certainly interesting, and I like the idea of demonstrating 
> constraints this way. I'd prefer to call these topics something 
> other than "simple", since that may scare authors off to use the 
> base "complex/confusing/loose" DTDs instead. I'd like to brain-storm
> this idea further...
>  

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>
> To: Gershon L Joseph <gershon@tech-tav.com>
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:48:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [dita] Need Clarification on Implications of Different 
> List Markup Patterns

> 
> Would it make sense for core DITA 1.2 to include a simplifying 
> constraint module (for instance, limiting nesting for some blocks) 
> and to provide some parallel shells (conceptSimple, taskSimple, etc)
> that apply those constraints?
> 
> That might meet the concern you identify below and illustrate constraints.
> 
> 
> Hoping that's interesting,
> 
> 
> Erik Hennum
> ehennum@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
> Gershon L Joseph <gljoseph@yahoo.com> wrote on 02/12/2008 07:37:17 AM:
> 
> > I still feel that the DITA spec should provide a loose set of DTDs 
> > for users to specialize from, but that it should also provide a 
> > tight set of DTDs that authors can use out of the box. IMO the 
> > current base topic DTDs are too loose to be useful. The sad fact is 
> > we see tons of users applying bad markup -- effectively marking up 
> > their DITA XML content the way they applied styles in Word or FrameMaker.