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

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

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:
https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-idioms.html#footnotes

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.

https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-idioms.html#footnotes

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