Re: [dita] figgroup: whither <data>?

[Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>]

OK if we defer to 1.2? I'm wary of touching
the DTDs/Schemas at this stage for 1.1. 

Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com

01/18/2007 09:36 PM

To	dita@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[dita] figgroup: whither <data>?

This looks like an oversight... 

The content model for figgroup is just enough to allow for the one specialization
of it that DITA ships with: syntax diagrams. 

<!ELEMENT figgroup      ((%title;)?,
                    
    (%figgroup; | %xref; | %fn; | %ph; |
                    
     %keyword;)* )            
                 >

Conspicuously missing from that list are state, term, data and foreign
(perhaps also boolean, indexterm and foreign).  Granted, these could
be wrapped in a ph, but the extra level of wrapping isn't always sensible
in the context of a specialization. 

I'd like to see at least the four basic elements state, term, data and
foreign included into figgroup's content model, befitting its role as a
base for specializations. 

-- 
Deborah Pickett
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com