OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

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

Subject: Re: [dita] Comments on Suggested Updates to DITA 1.0 Specification

Hi Sharon,

I'll try to answer these all in order:

Re: license.txt, the fix is to remove the license.txt reference.

Re: Update version number, the fix is to change those three files to use
1.0 like the others. You're right that "Correct version number" would make
more sense here.

Re: Every element is "Bold". The fix is to update the description for other
elements. Specifically, change <i> to Italic, <u> to Underline, <tt> to
Teletype, <sup> to Superscript, and <sub> to Subscript. Currently all
elements describe themselves as "Bold".

Re: Code phrase, yes, this should be Code Phrase.

Considering it has been a while since the original post and comments, I'll
also mention the other items I have gotten. These should all be added to
the Updates document before the changes are actually made.
- It was suggested that Property should not be updated to Property Row,
because some formatters may not choose to display this as a table. So that
item will not be implemented.
- The catalog file to be updated is catalog-dita.xml, not catalog.xml.
- Topic.mod contains a comment that it contains definitions for the
Programming Domain. This should say that it contains definitions for the
base topic type.
- There is an additional typo in the table, hilightDomain should be
- programmingDomain.mod misspells specialization

In addition, one item was reported outside of the TC list. The
catalog-dita.xml file groups declarations with this element:
<group xml:base="dtd">
This is appropriate for some delivery mechanisms, such as the DITA Open
Toolkit, where the DTDs are in a "dtd" directory and the catalog is one
directory up. However, OASIS delivers the catalog in the same directory as
the files, so the xml:base attribute is not needed.

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit

             Sharon Read Veach                                             
             Com>                                                       To 
             07/25/2005 06:50                                           cc 
                                       [dita] Comments on Suggested        
             Please respond to         Updates to DITA 1.0 Specification   
             Sharon Read Veach                                             

I appreciate the careful editor's eye to the 1.0 spec.
I have a couple of questions:

--A Change entry says:
   Header says to see license.txt for disclaimers/permissions

My comment:
   What is the fix?  Remove reference to license.txt?

--A Change entry says:
   Update version number in the header

My comment:
   If you mean to backdate the version from 1.3 to 1.0, then
   "Correct version number" would be less confusing.
   Unless, of course, you mean to make the 1.0 files into 1.3 versions ...

--A Change entry says:
   The name for every element is "Bold"

My comment:
   What is the fix here?

--A Change entry says:
   "Code phrase"

My comment:
   Should this be "Code Phrase" (a la "Group Composite").  Or is there
   no Initcaps convention here?

Thank you for putting this together,

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