[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita-adoption] Short descrption, 2nd review
I suggested the rationale in this blog piece to the group as reasons
why groups that eschew the use of shortdesc may be selling
themselves short. http://ditaperday.com/blog/the-shortdesc-element/ In general, "Shun shortdesc, risk being shortshrifted in function." Some particular data specializations may not require the annotative function of shortdesc normally had in OT processing, so I can't say "no" in all cases. I would, however, point out that even data specializations without annotation are half-complete. It is the header to a payload in transaction packets; the reason for using the particular API call; the "why you should really read this" to the possible outcomes of miswiring the fuse to an atomic bomb; the heads up to whatever should be of concern or interest to you. -- Don On 1/4/2016 12:26 PM, Kristen James
Eberlein wrote:
I think that modifying style sheets to NOT render short descriptions is misguided and a poor practice that the Adoption TC should not encourage.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]