OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [dita-comment] A question hazardstatement element @type

I wrote a whitepaper on DITA 1.3 for the DITA Adoption Technical Committee that you can download here. I recommend that you read the first three sections on page 4 through page 6. You may also find the example of note type=trouble on page 21 to be helpful.

Troubleshooting information follows a three-part pattern: condition, cause, and remedy. Hazards also follow a three-part pattern:Âtype of hazard, consequence, and how to avoid. The hazard pattern is more appropriate for hazardÂstatements than the troubleshooting pattern would be, so I do not recommend using note @type=trouble for hazard statements.

Best regards,
Bob Thomas

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:44 PM, ããããããã æèç <aruga@antenna.co.jp> wrote:

Please tell me about the specification of @type ("trouble") of the hazardstatement element of DITA 1.3.
  • The specification of the @type value of the hazardstatement element is
    "Available values are note, tip, fastpath, restriction, important, remember, attention, caution, notice, danger, warning, other, and - dita - use - conref - target ." .
  • The hazardstatement element is a specialization of the note element. "Inheritance + topic/note hazard-d/hazardstatement"
  • We can specify "trouble" for the @type value of the note element.
Are there any special reasons for not including "trouble" in the value of @type in the hazardstatement element?

Best regards,

Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]