[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Standard DITA processing instructions?
(Merging
threads) Using
PIs for change tracking makes sense, and standardization of change-tracking
markup across tools would also be beneficial to XML users if it were possible. I
don’t know the extent to which it would be possible. However,
I don’t see the use of PIs for change tracking as being a DITA-specific issue
at all. Tool developers would be much more motivated to standardize change-tracking
markup across tools if they only have to do it once for all XML dialects. I
doubt that the change-tracking issues are any different for Docbook or XHTML or
S1000D, however if we’re not the only dialect-specific TC to look into
this issue then in theory the TCs for different dialects could come up with
different standards, and that would be a problem. Is there a more general TC that
could address change-tracking markup? Su-Laine Su-Laine Yeo JustSystems Canada, Inc. From: Park Seth-R01164
[mailto:seth.park@freescale.com] I've
captured some information about this suggestion in the DITA wiki: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DitaProcessingInstructions After
my arch spec responsibilities are completed, I'll try to formalize this
request/idea in a way that can be actionable. -seth
park From: Rob Hanna
[mailto:rob@ascan.ca] I suggest that the real differentiator should be whether the
item is useful, persistent, human-readable metadata or if simply transitory
machine-readable data. The former managed as elements and attributes and the
latter managed as PIs. I think change tracking is very transitory and of little value as
human-readable metadata (unlike change history or review comments which are
human-readable). Change tracking really has little value outside of the editing
environment. Change bars and other change tracking marks do not usually persist
beyond a single revision. For what it is worth, I think this is a good use of PIs. Cheers, Rob Hanna From: Ogden, Jeff
[mailto:jogden@ptc.com] I think the DITA TC could include discussion of “DITA
standard PIs” in the spec. I think having something standard for change tracking would be a
good thing, but I wonder if that might not be better done in a way that would
work for DITA and non-DITA document types. And if you buy into that, the
question is what group would be a good one to work on it? I guess it
could be a recommendation from the DITA TC that had wider application than just
DITA, but I can imagine that there may be some other group that might be
appropriate and willing to do that work too. I think you have to look at using PIs vs. more traditional
element/attribute markup on a case by case basis. An advantage of PIs is that implementations that don’t
understand or support a particular PI should ignore them. That
isn’t as true for element markup. In the case of change tracking, I think there could be some real
advantages to using PIs. -Jeff From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]