FW: [dita] Groups - Issue #12038 - Proposal: Acronyms and other Abbreviated Forms (IssueNumbe12038.html) uploaded

["Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>]

During today's DITA TC call JoAnn asked members of the TC to send
comments and questions on the Acronyms Proposal to the Translation
Subcommittee.

Included below is a message I sent out to the DITA TC list shortly after
the Acronyms proposal was originally posted.

    -Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ogden, Jeff
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:06 AM
> To: 'dita@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [dita] Groups - Issue #12038 - Proposal: Acronyms and
other
> Abbreviated Forms (IssueNumbe12038.html) uploaded
> 
> Some questions and comments on this proposal.
> 
> Is @id required on the abbreviated-form specialization or is the id
just
> used to make the element conrefable?
> 
> Does the use of the abbreviated-form specialization require the use of
> conref or is that just the likely or recommended way that authors will
use
> it?
> 
> Is first or not first use determined using the @id on abbreviated-form
> specialization or by pattern matching against some of the
abbreviated-form
> element's contents?  If pattern matching, which content is used?
> 
> Are any of <expanded>, <short>, <surface-form> required within the
> abbreviated-form specialization?  Can <expanded>, <short>,
<surface-form>
> be used outside of the abbreviated-form specialization? If they can be
> used outside of abbreviated-form, the names seem too generic.
> 
> I don't understand this statement "The abbreviated form element is
> designed to be extended via specialization to reflect the actual form
of
> abbreviation, for example: . . .".  Does the example show a
specialized
> version of the abbreviated-form element?
> 
> The proposal is designed around an inline content model rather than a
> definition and reference model. Would a definition and reference model
> work better?
> 
> How will this work for fallback generalization? Will the expanded and
> surface-form content both be included in the output and the short form
> omitted?
> 
> Are these specializations to be included in a new domain
specialization,
> an existing domain specialization and, if so, which one, or somewhere
> else?
> 
> Would this be available for use in all of the "standard" DITA topic
types?
> In map types?
> 
>    -Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gljoseph@yahoo.com [mailto:gljoseph@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 3:08 AM
> > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [dita] Groups - Issue #12038 - Proposal: Acronyms and other
> > Abbreviated Forms (IssueNumbe12038.html) uploaded
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here is the HTML version of Issue #12038 - Proposal: Acronyms and
other
> > Abbreviated Forms.
> >
> > Gershon
> >
> >  -- Mr. Gershon Joseph*
> >
> > The document named Issue #12038 - Proposal: Acronyms and other
> Abbreviated
> > Forms (IssueNumbe12038.html) has been submitted by Mr. Gershon
Joseph*
> to
> > the OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC document
> > repository.
> >
> > Document Description:
> > HTML format of proposal for Issue #12038 - Acronyms and other
> Abbreviated
> > Forms
> >
> > View Document Details:
> > http://www.oasis-
> > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/document.php?document_id=26361
> >
> > Download Document:
> > http://www.oasis-
> >
open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/26361/IssueNumbe12038.html
> >
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
> > application
> > may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy
and
> > paste
> > the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
> >
> > -OASIS Open Administration