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] Notes in Lightweight DITA

I vote for Option 1 for conceptual simplicity and mindshare.

Mark Giffin
Mark Giffin Consulting, Inc.

On 5/6/2016 12:56 PM, Keith Schengili-Roberts wrote:

Agreed on Option #1 for the reasons Scott has already outlined.


Keith Schengili-Roberts
DITA Information Architect / DITA Specialist
825 Querbes, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2V 3X1
tel  + 1 514 279-4942  /  toll free + 1 877 279-4942 


Interested in attending? Visit our event website for more information. 

From: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@jeppesen.com>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 3:52:23 PM
To: Michael Priestley; dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita-lightweight-dita] Notes in Lightweight DITA

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,




Scott Hudson
Content Strategist

Training & Documentation
Global Services & Support


Jeppesen  |  Digital Aviation  |  Boeing

55 Inverness Drive East
| Englewood, CO 80112 | www.jeppesen.com




From: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 1:46 PM
To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
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

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