OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type


Hi Bob,
I tend to agree with you. I cannot find any rationale in the memos (so far) for the <process> alternative in task. I can't think of what it's supposed to handle that cannot already be handled by steps or steps-unordered. Haven't heard back from Alan Houser, however, who originally proposed it.
 
Michael is also checking the email archives.
 
I'd be in favor of your proposal to chuck it at this point. I think it just creates confusion for authors.
 
Regards,
JoAnn
 

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
303-232-7586
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com

 

 


From: Bob Thomas [mailto:bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:02 PM
To: JoAnn Hackos; Michael Priestley
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type

Please pardon my intrusion (I'm a TC observer). I have a couple of objections to adding 'process' as specified in #12011.

There really needs to be a rationale for this that includes the semantic intent for 'process'. If allowing 'ol' and 'ul' inside of 'task' is the only rationale, then you would be better off adding 'section' to 'taskbody'. In any event, I would rather do neither.

My other objection is a bit more fundamental. In Information Mapping®, process is considered to be an information type just like concept or task (procedure). While I do not think that the TC necessarily needs to honor that distinction, it ought not to lightly dismiss it. The notion of process as an information type suggests that a section-level implementation of 'process' in DITA would be inappropriate. If the TC goes ahead and implements 'process', as proposed in #12011, it would preclude anybody else from creating a topic-level specialization for process.

In the Information Mapping® compatible DTD that I worked on 10 years ago, the content model for process was quite similar to the one for procedure (task); the key difference being that a process had 'stage' elements rather than 'step' elements.

Regards,

Bob Thomas
President
Tagsmiths, LLC
+1 720 201 8260


--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type
To: "JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 11:00 AM


Hi JoAnn,

The rationale below is to allow <ol> and <ul> into taskbody. In other words, if someone wants to create a task with a simple <ol> instead of the more prescriptive <steps>, the <process> element allows them to do so.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25



"JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>

11/12/2008 12:06 PM

To
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc

Subject
RE: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type







Hi Michael,
The email from Alan provides no rationale for the <process>, just shows the syntax. Let me know if any of the minutes show the rationale or any examples. I’ve written Alan but haven’t received a response as yet.
 
JoAnn
 
JoAnn Hackos PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
Skype joannhackos
 



From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:22 AM
To:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
Fw: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type

 

Re discussion today about elements in general task - found this, which provides a bit of background on process - will check meeting minutes from around this time.


Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

----- Forwarded by Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM on 11/11/2008 11:21 AM -----

Alan Houser <arh@groupwellesley.com>

12/11/2007 11:01 AM


To
dita@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
 
Subject
[dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type

 


   





I submit this message for possible discussion at today's
(11-December-2007) DITA TC meeting. Below is a summary of proposed
content models that will support proposal #12011 -- Generic Task Type.
These content models are the result of recent discussion on the DITA TC
list.

-Alan
-------------
Summary:
- Optional, repeatable <note> allowed before <cmd>
- <taskbody> allows only a single <steps> element
- New <process> element to permit <ol>/<ul> constructions in <taskbody>

Proposed content models:
taskbody:
(prereq?,
context?,
(steps | steps-unordered | process),
result?,
example?,
postreq?)
(Issue: allow <section> before and after <steps>?)

steps/steps-unordered:
Support <section> between steps:
(section?, step)+

step:
Support optional, repeatable <note> before cmd:
(note*,
cmd,
(info | substeps | tutorialinfo | stepxmp |  choicetable | choices)*,
stepresult?)
Issue: allow <itemgroup> in <step>?

process:
(section?, (ol | ul))+
Issue: this would allow multiple ol/ul elements.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]