dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Proposal 12017 - consistency between map & topic metadata and abstract vs shortdesc
- From: "France Baril" <France.Baril@ixiasoft.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:47:36 -0400
With this proposal,
the committee is making an effort to increase concistency between maps and
topics. However, it also states: The map
metadata will still have several elements that are not present in topic prologs:
linktext, searchtitle, shortdesc, and (assuming that implementation of item
#12018 results in this element) navtitle.
With the arrival of
abstracts in DITA 1.1 topics, the proposed usage
of <abstract/> and <shortdesc/> is as
follow:
*
Abstract: Full sentences that can be used for automated overviews, summaries.
They are also the topics' first paragraph.
*
Shortdesc: Phrases, sentence segments that provide 'hints' when users
roll over related links or xrefs.
Keeping shortdesc
instead of including abstract in the map metadata may lead to inconsistency on
the way people use the shortdesc element in maps and topics. Are shortdesc
elements in map used for 'roll over' purposes only? I'm not sure a partial
sentence is very useful, even as metadata.
Since this may bring
up the whole transitional text discussion, the committee has moved to
accept proposal 12017 as is, but has suggested that we bring up this
discussion on the list. So here it is: should we introduce abstract in map
metadata for the sake of consistency in the way elements are
used?
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]