Re: [dita-comment] DITA 1.2 <hazardstatement><messagepanel>

[Don Day <donday@learningbywrote.com>]

On 7/21/2010 4:44 AM, Johannes Graubner (Transcom) wrote:

Hello All,

 

DITA 1.2 Committee Draft 0.2 contains the new elements <hazardstatement><messagepanel>. These contain the elements:

( (typeofhazard) then (consequence) (any number) then (howtoavoid) (one or more) )

 

Missing is an element <explanation> (any number).

 

Often, hazards are not obvious and/or occur under certain circumstances only. Then the reader must get some corresponding information. Such information however fits neither into <consequence> nor <howtoavoid>.

 

Could you please consider to include <explanation> (or something similar)? It probably needs the same content model and attributes as <howtoavoid>.

 

The Content model of <messagepanel> should then be:

( (typeofhazard) then (consequence) (any number) then (explanation) (any number) then (howtoavoid) (one or more) )

 

Regards

Johannes Graubner

 

Transcom. Ing.-Buero Johannes Graubner
Engineers for technical communication
- manuals - training - internet -

 

mailto:graubner@transcom.de        Tel. +49-179-66 55 215
http://www.transcom.de             Fax  +49-941-5992 95552

 

Humboldtstrasse 18,  07743 Jena, Germany

Thank you for this comment, Johannes. The Machine Industry subcommittee is inactive at this time, but I was able to learn the following information that informs on your suggestions:


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: New comments about DITA Machine Industry-related materials in 1.2 Spec
Date:	Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:05:06 +0200
From:	Jang Graat - all-round communicator <jang@jang.nl>
To:	Don Day <donday@learningbywrote.com>

Hello Don,

On the linked table I see that the remark on C009 was checked already.  
About C008 I can say the following:

I have not been actively involved in defining the <hazardstatement>,  
but I did follow some of the discussions. The reason to go for the  
proposed model and not extend it with an <explanation> is that the SC  
wanted to stick to the ANSI Z535.4 standard for hazard statements.  
Adding an explanation would make the DITA model divert from that  
standard and there were no strong enough reasons for doing so. In my  
personal opinion, a hazard statement that requires an extra  
explanation in the messagepanel has not been defined clear enough in  
the first place. Possibly, it should be divided in multiple hazard  
statements that are each clear enough using the available terms. Also,  
the idea of adding an <explanation> element in that location runs  
counter to the minimalist principles that were once at the basis of  
DITA.

Let me know if you need more thoughts on this.

Kind regards

Jang

JANG Communication
Coaching - Copywriting - Consulting
Amsterdam - Netherlands
Tel.  +31 20 755 8466
Cell +31 6 5478 1632
http://www.jang.nl

The rationale of aligning the model with ANSI Z535.4 is compelling. Jang offers good suggestions for information design that the Technical Committee will review for including into the hazardstatement and messagepanel reference topics.

--

Don R. Day

DITA and XML Consultant

Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

--T.S. Eliot