Fw: [dita-lightweight-dita] Footnote desired in LW DITA?

["Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>]

Belatedly forwarding Rahel's note - another
vote for footnote

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
----- Forwarded by Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM on 04/11/2016 03:36 PM -----

From:      
 Rahel Anne Bailie <rahel.bailie@gmail.com>
To:      
 Don Day <donday@donrday.com>,
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date:      
 04/04/2016 07:11 AM
Subject:    
   Re: [dita-lightweight-dita]
Footnote desired in LW DITA?

---

Hi, 

I just tried to post to the dita-lightweight forum and
got a "denied" message (though I was sure that I'd joined - I
am getting the messages). Or perhaps I'm not supposed to contribute here?
Please advise.

Here's what I contributed:
If I could weigh in, my opinion is that footnotes are
an ongoing need for marketing material. To represent the user, footnotes are
used for calling out exceptions (e.g. "This feature is a paid feature
on Model X"), legal disclaimers, and similar information on things
like datasheets.

As for the difference between <fn> and <footnote>,
I'll let the technical folks weigh in on that. 



On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Don Day <donday@donrday.com>
wrote:
Because Jan did say 'footnote', I want to pry once more
on assumptions: that we are talking about the equivalent of regular DITA's
<fn> element (generally relocated from its source context when rendered)
and not the HTML5 <footnote> element, which is a location placeholder
in HTML5 (whose content is rendered in place).

For Lightweight DITA, the latter <footnote> could be specialized
as needed from section, specifically the final section in a body. I think
Noz and I are both agreeing strongly that the <fn> version has a
place in the core content definition. But we can discuss that at a review
pass once we have the architectural features firmed up (like specialization,
where things still need proven).
--
Don


On 4/3/2016 1:44 PM, Noz Urbina wrote:
I'd say so. I haven't seen a profile recently but
they're typical web teams currently in your usual CMS tools (Word >
Sitecore, or whatever else WCMS) looking to do more structured, reusable
content in multiple formats, so assuming we've not totally done a left
turn on the profile then for sure!

On 3 April 2016 at 15:14, Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:
Just to confirm: otherwise they fit the profile for Lightweight? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 3, 2016, at 3:26 AM, Noz Urbina <noz.urbina@urbinaconsulting.com>
wrote:

I've got a client in banking right now and footnote is
absolutely vital because you can't market without legal notes. Similar
applies in Pharma. Citations which are really treated as footnotes. I'm
not sure how that plays in here. That applies to Banking, Pharma, and I've
got some clients in financial services software that use a lot of quotes
from magazines in this way. 

On 1 April 2016 at 22:30, Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:
Hi Jan,

I agree with Don that this is the right way to communicate it - what the
list is for.

I also fully expected that as the different focus areas developed out specializations
to test the architecture we'd find gaps - so this is normal and expected,
and why we're waiting for each group's specialization work to complete
before finalizing a spec for topic and map.

All that said, the one question I've got about footnote is whether it's
a useful requirement going forward, or only for legacy materials. The marketing
folks I had talked with about footnote at IBM (and we had some examples)
thought that it would be better not to have the footnote going forward.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley



From:        Don
Day <donday@donrday.com>
To:        dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:        04/01/2016
03:28 PM
Subject:        Re:
[dita-lightweight-dita] Footnote desired in LW DITA?
Sent by:        <dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Jan, this list IS a sounding board for ideas. Our discussion format is
less rigorous than an RFE or RFC item, and Michael tends to use a consensus
approach to closure on things. With that, let the debate begin.

And after thinking at length about how HTML5's <footnote> element
might inform on content model, I realized finally that your question may
have been about current DITA's <fn> element, which is not yet in
lightweight DITA. This element IS an archetype-level element that finds
many uses in specializations. As we look to adding things back in later
on in the LwD process, I agree that this element deserves consideration.

When I think of a topic architecture, I look for structures that underpin
many common instances. Is a particular item an instance, or an archetype
or architectural feature? The archetypes and architectural features go
into the core, the instances go into the specializations.

<fn> and <indexterm> (a bird of a feather) are archetypes that
uniquely contain relocatable content. Generally we place these elements
inline for context but render their content elsewhere (contrasted with
referenceable content, content from elsewhere that gets rendered
at the point of reference). I think they are essential in a full implementation.
Granted, it is hard to train writers to think of content as objects rather
than instances, but this is a case where indirection provides great capability
for the types of queries and renditions that will drive future content
delivery.

So if this is the case of "footnote" that you requested, then
I am fully with you. I suspect that Michael will refocus on the adequateness
of inner content models once we finish the overall structure.
-- 
Don
R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee
LinkedIn: donrday   Twitter:
@donrday
About.me:
Don
R. Day   Skype: don.r.day
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot 


On 3/30/2016 5:01 AM, Jan Benedictus wrote:
HI all.

While migrating sample content to Lw DITA to test the new Marketing specialization,
we ran into the limitation that there is no footnote in the schema. I understand
that 'scope-creep' is always a risk, but still it feels that a footnote
is a pretty versatile requirement? It wouldn t feel logical to put this
in a specialization?

I am not sure if this is the right way to express such findings, so  my
second question is more procedure-related: what is the correct way to communicate
such RFC's?

Cheers!
Jan

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
Noz

Content Strategist, www.urbinaconsulting.com
Co-Author of "Content Strategy: Connecting the dots between business, brand and benefits", www.thecontentstrategybook.com






--
Noz

Content Strategist, www.urbinaconsulting.com
Co-Author of "Content Strategy: Connecting the dots between business, brand and benefits", www.thecontentstrategybook.com



--
Don R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
LinkedIn: donrday   Twitter: @donrday
About.me: Don R. Day   Skype: don.r.day

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--

Rahel Anne Bailie, Content Strategy & Ecosystems / Content Management & Design
Content strategies for business impact 
Mobile: +44 (0) 7869 643 685 / skype: rahelab
Co-producer: Content Strategy Workshops
Co-editor: The Language of Content Strategy
Co-author: Content Strategy: Connecting the dots between business, brand, and benefits