[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Specialization of syntax diagram
Hi Paul, That is indeed a bug. Back when syntax diagram was created, we intended to add xref and footnote to the content model of both fig and figgroup. It looks like it only ended up in figgroup. The fix here is to add xref and fn to the content model of the fig element. (Another option would be to remove the specializations as direct children of <syntaxdiagram>, but that would be a backwards incompatible change at this point). Are there any issues with this as the fix? Would it be ok for this to be a fix in 1.1, rather than in the soon-to-be-posted batch of bug fixes? The downside of that is that generalization will not work for some syntax diagrams until 1.1 is released. Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@bla stradius.com> To <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> 10/24/2005 10:19 cc AM Subject [dita] Specialization of syntax diagram pr-d/syntaxdiagram is a specialization of topic/fig. It has the following elements in its content model: pr-d/fragref, pr-d/synnote, pr-d/synnoteref. These are specializations of xref, footnote and xref respectively. topic/fig cannot contain footnote or xref (directly). Is this a bug in DITA? I discovered this discrepency while testing a prototype specialization validator plugin for XMetaL. Paul Prescod
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]