[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] weak/strong constraint proposal
Thanks
Michael. I see the value in the proposal and I don’t have a specific
objection to it, however to start the discussion I’ll recap a couple of things
I’ve mentioned in off-list discussions and in a previous TC meeting: 1)
Constraining
a document will affect copy/paste as well as conref. If you constrain out
<lq> elements, for example, you won’t be able to paste anything
that contains a <lq> element and have it be valid. Depending on your
authoring tool, it could mean not being able to paste that content at all unless
you remove the <lq> element first. If
an organization’s goal is to simplify the user experience for authors (by
presenting a smaller element list), but they don’t want to strictly
disallow any structures, using constraints will be a problematic way to achieve
their goal regardless of whether we adopt this proposal. 2)
There are features on the DITA 1.3 list that I think are higher-priority than
this proposal. I’m
open to being persuaded otherwise, but for now I think that we should focus on what
is already in 1.2. Happy
Thanksgiving to the Canadians, by the way! I’ll be out of the office on
Monday Oct 12. Best
regards, Su-Laine Su-Laine Yeo JustSystems Canada, Inc. From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]