[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal 13056: Extension to syntax for built-in selection attributes
I think your option (2) is sufficient. I just wanted to make sure we didn't miss the opportunity to at least think about it. Cheers, E. On 3/4/13 8:41 AM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Eliot, > > When writing up the phase 2 proposal, I kept thinking there should be > something in there about subject schemes, but eventually decided that 1) it > wasn't a critical part of the proposal, 2) implementations could probably > do extra scheme validation whether or not the spec describes it, and 3) > trying to come up with a good description made my head spin so I decided to > keep it out of the main proposal. > > My thought process was - you can have a subject scheme that declares the > key "product", and then declares "database" and "appserver" as sub-keys. An > application is (or should be) well within its rights to do fancy validation > on that - to make sure any group within @product is defined as a > subcategory of product within your scheme. However, I don't think we can or > should mandate that, which is why I stopped working on language for it. > > I think options for including it are: > 1) Make it a non-normative example > 2) It can be left as part of 13115 (proposal to explicitly connect ditaval > and subject scheme); I'm planning to send a note out about that proposal > this week > 3) Somebody can help work out good language to describe this as an optional > part of the current feature 13056. > > Robert D Anderson > IBM Authoring Tools Development > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/) > > > > From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@rsicms.com> > To: dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>, > Date: 03/02/2013 08:41 > Subject: [dita] Proposal 13056: Extension to syntax for built-in > selection attributes > Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > I like this proposal very much. > > The one thing that comes to mind is adding, or at least mentioning as a > possibility, the use of subjectScheme maps to declare and validate > user-defined groups. > > That is, I'd like the option, as a DITA system administrator, the option to > formally define what groups authors should be allowed to use by using > subjectScheme maps, which I would likely already be using to define value > uses for use in conditional attributes. > > I'm not sure what would be required--I haven't thought this idea through > and > I wouldn't want something like this to overburden the proposal, but it > seems > like a natural extension of the current use of subjectSchemes for defining > attribute value lists. > > Cheers, > > E. > > > -- > Eliot Kimber > Senior Solutions Architect, RSI Content Solutions > "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" > Main: 512.554.9368 > www.rsicms.com > www.rsuitecms.com > Book: DITA For Practitioners, from XML Press, > http://xmlpress.net/publications/dita/practitioners-1/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect, RSI Content Solutions "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 512.554.9368 www.rsicms.com www.rsuitecms.com Book: DITA For Practitioners, from XML Press, http://xmlpress.net/publications/dita/practitioners-1/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]