[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: <prolog> and <data>
|
Yes, I would agree to that statement, Kris. Thanks for clarifying your point. We should be able to tackle this then, once we have discussed it in the next regular SC meeting and the group as a whole agrees. f. From: Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
Hi, Frank. I certainly think that having the facility to apply metadata on a topic level in HDITA and MDITA is critical But I don’t think that having a equivalent of <prolog> is necessary for HDITA and MDITA. There isn’t really an equivalent in HDITA, and the representation for topic-level metadata is <meta> elements. For MDITA, I’d think it should be variables
defined in a YAML front-matter header. Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Skype: kriseberlein; voice: +1 (919) 622-1501 From: Wegmann, Frank <Frank.Wegmann@softwareag.com>
In general, I find it legitimate to allow metadata on the topic not only in XDITA within <prolog>, but also in MDITA and HDITA. In collaborative environments,
I’d prefer the option of having metadata in each of the formats in use. In the committee note #2, it is mentioned for the extended profile for MDITA and the example from the samples shows metadata in its natural habitat, namely the
YAML header. For HDITA, the spec draft locates metadata in <meta> inside <head>. The current XDITA example for metadata uses only <data>, compared to a number of specific metadata elements in DITA like <author> etc.
For me, the question is also about how the distinction between <metadata> and <data> in DITA is reflected in LwDITA, where the task of representing metadata
is on the shoulders of <data> alone. That element is supposed to be used for metadata and also serve as basis for specialization. Do others see a possible issue here? f. From:
dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Kristen James Eberlein I can understand why XDITA has <prolog>; it’s necessary to hold metadata that applies to the topic as a whole. However, there really is not an HDITA or MDITA equivalent. I suggest rather than defining prolog and data components identically in HDITA and MDITA, we simply state that there is no HDITA or MDITA equivalent for prolog. Thoughts? Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Skype: kriseberlein; voice: +1 (919) 622-1501
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]