Re: AW: [dita] Machine Industry Task question

[Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Chris,

> When I specialize <prelreqs> and <closereqs> from section and the
resulting
> content model of a mitaskbody:

If closereqs is a domain element specialized from section, then it can only
appear in a task where section is legal. So, it can only appear at the
start where you also have <section>.

Does the closereqs element contain a set of items that must be done after
the task steps are completed? I'm just trying to be certain if it is, in
fact, filling the same purpose as <postreq>.

Thanks -

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 (Good Monday & Thursday)

"SeicoDyne DITA" <dita@seicodyne.ch> wrote on 06/26/2008 09:02:44 AM:

> >> 2. If so, is the TC also OK with specializing closereqs from example,
> >> when it is not an example? Given the close semantic relationship
> >> between prelreqs/prereq and closereqs/postreq, are we OK with having
> >> no defined relationship?
>
> >I certainly object to specializing from example in this case--it seems
to
> be a clear misuse of example as a base.
> >I would certainly be very surprised when I got the default presentation
> effect for <example> in my machine industry tasks.
>
> >Why can't closereqs be a specialization of section?
>
> To be honest, at that point I was not sure regarding the specialization
> technique.
> When I specialize <prelreqs> and <closereqs> from section and the
resulting
> content model of a mitaskbody:
>
>                        "(((%prelreqs;) |
>                           (%context;) |
>                           (%section;))*,
>                          ((%steps; |
>                            %steps-unordered; |
>                            %process;))?,
>                          (%result;)?,
>                          (%example;)*,
>                          (%closereqs;)*)"
>
> is a valid specialization, then I completely agree to specialize
closereqs
> from section.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>