Re: [dita] Re: DITA Proposed Feature # 12011 : Generic task type

[Alan Houser <arh@groupwellesley.com>]

I was curious about this option myself. I don't fully have my head around the ramifications of this approach, but if others on the TC think it reasonable, I would like to pursue it. It would (I believe) emulate the ad hoc working group's original desire to address the issue by loosening the content model for <step>.

I presume the "loose" and "tight" versions of <task> would be normative?

-Alan

Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com wrote:

OFAB0D9EEB.E6E771A4-ONCA25738A.0009DFF6-CA25738A.000AE046@moldflow.com" type="cite">
While I am in full agreement that we are in need of a task type that is less of a straitjacket, I'd like to know if the working group for this feature have considered taking advantage of the DITA 1.2 feature #12008 (restriction without specialization) to produce both a loose and tight version of a <task> DTD.  It might address some of the risks associated with introducing a new <generic-task> element, and it could have some big benefits for migrating tasks to generic tasks where required without having to rename elements.

--
Deborah Pickett
Information Architect, Moldflow Corporation, Melbourne
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com

-- 
Alan Houser, President
Group Wellesley, Inc.
412-363-3481
www.groupwellesley.com