AW: AW: [dita] Machine Industry Task question

["SeicoDyne DITA" <dita@seicodyne.ch>]

Robert,

The closereqs element has been derived from the S1000D standard and is
described as: Close-up-requirements to be used to capture any actions that
are required after the main precedure is completet.

Yes, it has to appear after the task steps are completed.

The definition of <postreq> in our langref is: The <postreq> element
describes steps or tasks that the user should do after the successful
completion of the current task.

Yes, <closereqs> is indeed identically to the semantic of <postreq>.

Our initial plan was just to extend the content model of <postreq> with the
S1000D element reqconds, to meet the machinery industry requirements.:
Instead of:
<!ENTITY % postreq.content "(%section.notitle.cnt;)*"
We would have had:
<!ENTITY % postreq.content  "(%section.notitle.cnt;)* | (%reqconds;)*"

But that plan was rejected by the TC. 

So the only way we found to add the <closereqs><reqconds> at the correct
place with a domain specialization, was by specializing it out of example.
As example has the same content model as section and as example appears at
the same position as closereqs has to appear. I am open to any better
proposal to achieve the same goal.

Best regards

Chris

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2008 16:11
An: SeicoDyne DITA
Cc: 'dita'; 'Eliot Kimber'
Betreff: Re: AW: [dita] Machine Industry Task question

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
>