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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita-lightweight-dita message

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

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

Hi Don,

Going back to this email because I had some questions - where you thinking of the HTML5 <aside> element when you talked about HTML5 footnotes?

HTML5 doesn't appear to have a footnote element, unless it's in a side recommendation somewhere I'm not seeing:

If we implement <fn> in LWD, what would we map it to in HTML5? The <aside> element is probably easiest to map from a structural equivalency perspective but would need extra processing to display as a footnote.


Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist

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
donrday   Twitter: @donrday
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?


Virus-free. www.avast.com

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