Re: [dita] review of Proposal #13078

["Jang F.M. Graat" <jang@jang.nl>]

Hi all,

here's my 2 cents:

Although following the CALS model is a good idea in itself in view of interoperability, that model is a little flawed and could use some slight revision, which could/should already be incorporated in DITA. The flaw is in the limitation of rotation to either no rotation or 90 degrees counterclockwise. In various situations, also having the option of 90 degrees clockwise rotation might be better. I would not limit the use cases to one rotation direction, for either attribute. How to define these options could be made clearer by allowing a text string: empty string is no rotation. "left" is 90 degrees counterclockwise and "right" is 90 degrees clockwise. It is simply how you rotate your head to be able to read the text, isn't it ?

Also, I would have opted for a "rotate" attribute for both the table and the single entry inside a table. That would be so much easier to explain and it does follow minimalist principles of keeping the number of entities down to a minimum.

Jang

JANG Communication
Technical Documentation Specialist
Amsterdam - Netherlands
Tel.  +31 20 755 8466
Cell +31 6 5478 1632
http://www.jang.nl

On 7 jan. 2013, at 03:44, Nancy wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> [note; I originally sent this to the TC list via my regular email account a few hours ago, but it didn't show up, so I'm sending it through the OASIS web site; if it ends up showing up twice, my apologies.]
> 
> After looking at #13078, I have the following comments
> 
> table[@orient] - Like David, I also wonder if 'port' and 'land' are the right names for these attribute values.  I noticed David suggested using the full words portrait/landscape, but there's also the fact that if a document is itself in landscape mode, either of those variants would be confusing. Maybe 'standard' or 'normal' and 'rotate'?  That would connect this with the entry/@rotate attribute as well.
> Other than that, I like David's suggestion of adding the text from the original proposal back into the spec language.
> 
> entry[@rotate] - I agree with David; rather than '1' and '0', I'd prefer to use 'yes' and 'no'.   Most users are neither mathematicians nor engineers.
> 
> Thanks, Chris, for getting the implementation out. 
> 
> Regards,
> Nancy Harrison
> 
> -- 
> _____________
> Nancy Harrison
> Infobridge Solutions  
> nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com