[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita-lightweight-dita] Response to Deb Bi(ssantz's review (Was "Re: Fwd: LwDITA Draft document")
Hi Kris and all,
We gathered some questions and observations about the LwDITA Draft document, and the available LW DITA documentation in general, seen from the implementation point of view.
p. 9, section 3.1– note is not included in the list
p. 10, section 3.2
> In XDITA and HDITA (the LwDITA authoring formats based on XML and HTML5, respectively), all text must be within paragraph (<p>) elements. An exception is the short description <shortdesc> element.
To avoid confusion, should all the exceptions be named here (according to the DTD files, at least <title> and <desc> should be similar cases)?
Do you think that we need to add here information about what block elements are part of Lightweight DITA? </kje> For clarity, yes.
p. 10, section 3.3
The @conref attribute is available only on the following elements:
Feedback from tool development: it is not clear why these decisions have been made, so further argumentation would be in place, as already suggested. Our question included:
· Why is conref not available for all block-level content?
· If <ul> and <ol>, why not <dl>?
· Note is not mentioned, but is a very common use case for @conref?
· (Current users of DITA may expect to see <ph> in this list as well - it may not be self-evident why the mechanism is now @keyref)
p. 21, Appendix A.1
<fnref> not included (NB. the aimed reference model is not yet documented clearly, so the implementation will follow)
p. 22 Appendix A.3
The type attribute (used in the note element) is not included in the attribute list
type (caution|warning|danger|trouble|notice|note) "note"
These were our comments based on XDITA implementation (no specializations so far).
Deb, thanks so very much for your thoughtful review. Please see my comments below.
On 12/30/2016 11:04 AM, Kristen James Eberlein wrote:
<kje>Yes, Carlos Evia and I -- so far the only authors/editors -- have different preferences. Carlos likes to use the abbreviation, whereas I prefer to
spell it out. Obviously we'll need to settle this style point.</kje>
<kje>I would imagine that some folks will start and stay with Lightweight DITA. Others will start with Lightweight DITA and later move to full DITA in order
to have a wider range of elements and authoring options. Do you think that we need to address "how or when to move from LwDITA to full DITA" in this committee note? As
a voting TC member, would you like to know what the plan is for that regardless of whether it is content for the final committee note?</kje>
<kje>Have added underline to the list of inline elements. Yes, preformatted text (<pre>) is a block element; it is the specialization basis for <codeblock>.
Do you think that we need to add here information about what block elements are part of Lightweight DITA?</kje>
<kje>I wasn't not involved in this decision, but I certainly see a use case for reusing a <li> element, especially as it might include multiple paragraphs
or a paragraph and a list or so forth.</kje>
<kje>We might well want to reconsider the structure at a later date, but for now there are solid reasons for the organization:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php