Discussion time for Learning & Training feature proposal 13106

[john_hunt@us.ibm.com]

Dear DITA TC members,

The Learning and Training sub-committee
has completed an initial draft of feature proposal 13106.  See the
latest HTML version here - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-learningspec/download.php/45630/proposal-13106-learning-new-interaction.html

This feature proposal comes as a response to the need to provide the ability
to include multiple paragraphs and other block elements in questions, responses,
feedback, and other elements used in the question-interactions domain that
was included with DITA 1.2. A total of 26 such elements need this support.
The feature proposal provides more detail on the use cases, sample questions,
and technical implementation for the new specialization.

At our meeting last Thursday, the sub-committee
had a good discussion with Robert Anderson and Eric Sirois about the technical
implementation. Neither saw any technical issues with our approach. Robert,
however raised the larger problem of the need the proposal raises to essentially
duplicate 26 of the elements in the current question-interactions domain,
in order to add the needed support for multiple block elements.


At this point, we'd like to schedule
30 minutes time at an upcoming TC agenda to brief the TC about the status
of the proposal and get advice on the options available. Specifically,
how to balance the clear need from the DITA practitioner community to support
block elements in questions against the need for parsimony and simplicity
in the DITA spec? 

Robert suggested some possible approaches
-

1) Go with the current proposal -- for
each of the 26 <element> items, make a new <elementDiv> with
virtually the same model and deliver both domains as alternative options.
This maintains backward compatibility, but adds considerable complexity
and potential confusion. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

2) Break backwards compatibility (change
the base from <fig> to <div>, and disallow title). This is
probably impossible to justify as long as we're producing one monolithic
doc, given statements on 1.* releases. If L&T 1.3 is a standalone package,
is it allowed to break the compatibility rule?

3) If we are able to break out L&T
from the main spec - what if it gets its own numbering? Part of the discussion
to come, then -- could this actually be "L&T 2.0", allowing
the SC more flexibility (and letting us address other related issues like
this)? If it is L&T 2.0, can it really be part of an umbrella approval?

4) Defer the issue. Eliot, Amber, JoAnn
and others are all stuck using alternatives to the standard L&T until
this is changed in the future.

Thanks. 

John Hunt 
Chair, OASIS DITA Learning and Training content subcommittee

---

John P. Hunt
Senior Technical Content Architect
IBM Collaboration Solutions | User Experience: Design and Information Excellence
john_hunt@us.ibm.com | 978.899.2394; t/l 276.2394
Join our community | Team blog | Product Wikis