RE: [dita] Question about DITA 1.2 item 12021

["Earley, Jim" <Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.com>]

I guess I don't see the problem with your example.  I can see valid scenarios where grouped sections would be useful both for profiling and conref'ed content.

-----Original Message-----
From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:33 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Question about DITA 1.2 item 12021

OK, I may have been hasty.  I'm still unclear on just what is being proposed.

What I don't want to allow is something like:

<section>
...
</section>
<sectiondiv>
<section>
...
</section>
</sectiondiv>
<section>
...
</section>

(with or without the final section) where what are presumably section 1, 2, and 3 aren't siblings.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 April 09 12:23
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Question about DITA 1.2 item 12021
>
> Hi Paul -
>
> > I would think we should allow either sections or sectiondivs, but
> > not a mix of both in any context.
>
> I think that is already the case. The sectiondiv element defines a
> block within section, and only goes within sections or within itself.
> My question about where to allow it is only about whether to allow it
> in the existing section specializations:
> refsyn, context, prereq, postreq, result, process
>
> Similarly, bodydiv defines a block within a body, and goes within body
> or within itself. My question about that in specializations is whether
> or how to allow it in conbody. Currently, Eliot's suggestion of
> conbodydiv (which sticks to the current conbody model) makes sense to
> me.
>
> > Given such broad issues, it makes me wonder if this proposal is well
> > enough baked to go into dita 1.2.
>
> I don't think these are very broad - the elements themselves have been
> pretty well thought out and defined, it's just the cascade down to
> specializations which needs to be made explicit.
>
> Robert D Anderson
> IBM Authoring Tools Development
> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 (Good Monday & Thursday)
>
> "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote on 04/09/2008 12:02:27 PM:
>
> > As mentioned further in this thread, I wouldn't want to be able to
> > have some sections in a bodydiv or sectiondiv and others not.  It
> > would make it almost impossible to number such sections, for
> > example.
> >
> > I would think we should allow either sections or sectiondivs, but
> > not a mix of both in any context.
> >
> > Similarly with bodydiv.
> >
> > Given such broad issues, it makes me wonder if this proposal is well
> > enough baked to go into dita 1.2.
> >
> > paul
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 2008 April 09 11:08
> > > To: Robert D Anderson
> > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dita] Question about DITA 1.2 item 12021
> > >
> > > Robert D Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2) The attributes for sectiondiv and bodydiv are not
> > > described. I plan to
> > > > use univ-atts and outputclass.
> > >
> > > That seems appropriate to me.
> > >
> > > > 3) Should bodydiv be added to the content model for conbody
> > > or refbody? If
> > > > added to conbody, should it be available only at the
> end, mixed with
> > > > sections and examples? Currently, sections and examples can
> > > only be used at
> > > > the end of conbody. I plan to leave bodydiv out of these
> > > models unless I
> > > > hear otherwise.
> > >
> > > I would certainly expect bodydiv to be available anywhere within
> > > body, not just where section is allowed, since it is not
> > > necessarily structural in the sense that section is, but may be
> > > used to simply group things for some purpose specific to a given
> > > author or
> specialization.
> > >
> > > > 4) Should sectiondiv be added to the content model of
> > > refsyn or the various
> > > > section specializations in task? That seems logical, but I
> > > have not added
> > > > it yet because I am not instructed to do so in the
> > > proposal. If it is added
> > > > to the "section.cnt" and "section.notitle.cnt"
> entities, which seems
> > > > correct, this will happen by default. That would also
> mean changing
> > > > <example> to use its own entity, rather than reusing
> section.cnt.
> > >
> > > Again, I would expect sectiondiv to be available within any
> > > specialization of section where it wasn't obviously inappropriate
> > > (because the section specialization was very highly
> specialized, for
> > > example).
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Eliot
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eliot Kimber
> > > Senior Solutions Architect
> > > "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
> > > Main: 610.631.6770
> > > www.reallysi.com
> > > www.rsuitecms.com
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
> OASIS TC that
> > > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your
> > > TCs in OASIS
> > > at:
> > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> > > oups.php
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all
> your TCs in
> OASIS
> > at:
> >
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php