[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Errors in conref push article (Was "Re: [dita-adoption] Can peopleoffer feedback on the conref push article?")
Hey, Gershon. Thanks for catching the
I've been assuming -- but I think we ought to make it upfront -- that it is OK to refresh the feature articles periodically as we notice minor errors.
But that then does raise the question of where we do draw a line. At what point does an article need to be re-approved by the TC? And should we use some sort of version marking? I guess I'll cc the list about this ...
Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) wrote:
Hi Kris, This is a great article. Some minor editorial nits: 1. In the Overview section, the second paragraph contains the text "Until DITA 1.2., the conref mechanism...". The period of the 1.2 should be removed. 2. Figure 4's caption is on the next page. It should keep with the image on the previous page (or the figure should keep with its caption on the next page). 3. Figure 5 contains a comment "Resource file that contain content to be pushed". I think this should be "Resource file that *contains* content to the pushed". 4. In Figure 6, maybe we should highlight the "conaction="pushbefore" text to be consistent with the other figures? OTOH that's not the only thing of interest in this figure, since the while <step> that precedes the "mark" step is here. So I'm in 2 minds on this one, but thought I'd bring it up anyway. 5. The note following Figure 8 contains the text "and the @conaction attribute to set to "pushreplace".". I think it should read "and the @conaction attribute *is* set to "pushreplace"." 6. In the Rules and restrictions section, I'm not sure the word "prefaced" is correct here. Perhaps "preceded" would be better? 7. In the third-last paragraph of the article, we have the following sentence: According to the DITA 1.2 specification: "Applications may, but need not, warn users if more than element attempts to replace a single target." There is a missing word. It should read: According to the DITA 1.2 specification: "Applications may, but need not, warn users if more than *one* element attempts to replace a single target." Please could you ensure this is also fixed in the DITA 1.2 spec -- or let me know and I'll do the necessary check for us. Again, this is a truly valuable article I want to share here at Cisco. But I know my stakeholders -- they will moan and grown if the article has any mistakes ;-) Thanks for putting this together. Excellent work as always. Cheers,- Gershon -----Original Message----- From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:07 PM To: email@example.com Subject: [dita-adoption] Can people offer feedback on the conref push article?