[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita-help] Groups - New Action Item #0001 Consult the DITA-OT contribution...
Good day, Tony. This seems like a reasonable approach to me. Regards. Chris From: Tony Self
[mailto:tself@hyperwrite.com] Hi Ian and everyone The main output of this subcommittee is now meant to be
recommendations on changes to the DITA specification. However, I think we
should be testing whether claims that we make about something being possible
for DITA publishing tools to incorporate, and I feel that the DITA OT is a good
“proving ground”. While we may publish the results of our testing
and experimentation, we have to be careful about not being seen to recommend
the DITA OT over rival tools. So while we may use DITA OT for our experimentation (and your
@actions idea is something we should pursue, even though it might have broader
application than just UA), we won’t be using it as a “reference
implementation”. This approach (test bed rather than reference
implementation) might address some of Chris’s concerns about DITA OT
bias... what do you think of this as an approach, Chris? I agree that we have to be careful not to just overload
attributes with bodgied-up semantics, but if an existing element or attribute
can be applied to a UA-specific application without bending anything, I think
that’s perfectly valid. Cheers Tony From: ian balanza-davis
[mailto:ibalanza_davis@yahoo.co.uk] I think it is the difference
between providing a plug-in or example for the demonstrations by overloading
attributes that currently exist in DITA (to achieve the expansion links through
javascript for example), and a new attribute or attribute group (or metadata,
since DITA seems to have an odd idea of what can be metadata) that
provide implementors with a hook from which to produce their own version. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]