FW: [dita-adoption] Can people offer feedback on the conref push article?

["Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)" <gerjosep@cisco.com>]

The email thread below lists the changes I requested during my review of
the article.

--
Gershon

-----Original Message-----
From: Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) 
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:43 PM
To: 'Kristen James Eberlein'
Subject: RE: [dita-adoption] Can people offer feedback on the conref
push article?

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:keberlein@pobox.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:07 PM
To: dita-adoption@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita-adoption] Can people offer feedback on the conref push
article?