Von: Don Day
[mailto:donday@learningbywrote.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. September 2010 15:31
An: Johannes Graubner (Transcom); dita-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: [dita-comment] DITA 1.2
<hazardstatement><messagepanel>
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.
--
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"