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] Clarification of <itemgroup>

Robert D Anderson wrote:
> The spec shows that p is contained by itemgroup, and that itemgroup
> contains p, but not the other way around. Is this a request to allow
> itemgroup within <p>?

Yes, I must have misread something before, but in implementing my 
specialization I did discover that itemgroup is not allowed within <p> 
and confirmed that that's what the spec says.

So this is worse than I thought, in that there is *no* way to do the 
specialization I need.

I see this as a bug in that as currently defined there is no way to 
directly bind <data> to subelements of <p> that are not also allowed in 
<ph>. Since you can bind <data> to *some* children of <p> the fact that 
you can't do it for *any* seems like a bug (that is, what is allowed for 
some should be allowed for all).

I'm not sure what the most appropriate solution is, as I can see several 
alternatives that would allow the specialization pattern I need:

1. Allow everything allowed by <p> in <ph>

2. Allow itemgroup w/in <p> (and allow itemgroup to nest)

3. Define a new wrapper base type analogous to itemgroup but more generic.

Relaxing the content model of <ph> would be the easiest to implement but 
might surprise tools that currently don't expect figures within phrases 
(although it really shouldn't matter).

Allowing itemgroup w/in <p> would be easy to implement and would 
probably not be as disruptive.

A new wrapper type is probably the cleanest solution but would be the 
hardest to implement.



W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759
(214) 954-5198


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