I vote Option 1 for consistency in authoring between full and lightweight. I think the other options differ too much from full DITA and could lead to potential confusion.
Close second for Option 2, as I could see potential use for hazard-statements where the hazard symbol could be contained in a dt and the body of the hazard statement in the dd.
I still prefer Option 1 though.
Thanks and best regards,
Training & Documentation
Global Services & Support
Jeppesen | Digital Aviation | Boeing
55 Inverness Drive East | Englewood, CO 80112 | www.jeppesen.com
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 1:46 PM
Subject: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA
We discussed a number of options in our last SC call - feedback/suggestions/votes needed to help us move forward.
Option 1: We implement <note>just as in full DITA, but with a subset of potential values - eg caution, warning, danger, trouble, notice, or no type (generic "note") and a constrained content model (maybe just <p>, <ul>, or <ol>)
Option 2: We implement <notelist> (or some other name slightly different from <note>) as a specialization of <dl> with a <dlentry> representing a note. The text of the <dlterm> could trigger specialized behaviors (if it's from the short list like caution, warning, etc.) or be passed through as is (if it's not recognized by either default or override processes)
Option 3: We implement <note-type>as a specialized phrase element (specialized off of either <ph> or <b>) available in any <p> that turns the <p> into a note. As with the dlentry option, the type of the note would be entered as text that could trigger specialized behaviors if recognized, or be used to apply a custom label.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist