[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for Consideration: Default Behavior for ListItems
Hi Eric and Michael, Thank you both for your replies and for bearing with me. The thing that bothers me with spanning is that in tha vast majority of technical literature it is unnecessary. Allowing it, provides users with the ability to unintentionally completely mess up a document structure making it nigh on impossible to translate properly. It assumes that text is translated in the same order in different languages - this is unfortunately not the case. All this adds to the cost of composition and translation. It also adds considerably to the cost of implementing composition engines. We have had recent evidence of the type of horror story that can arise during translation from the injudicious use of conrefs. Conrefs work fine in morphologically impoverished languages such as English and Chinese, but can deliver ungrammatical gibberish when you try and translate the text into any inflected language. I would be so bold as to propose a definitive subset of DITA, lets call it for arguments sake EDEN (Electronic Documentumentation Essential Norm) as a 'creationist' counterpoint :). EDEN would be a completely valid DITA form but would not allow the following constructs: 1) Recursive elements - no recursion 2) Block spanning elements - only inline elements allowed within block elements 3) Conrefs - replaced by xrefs for linguistically complete phrases or sentences 4) Specialization past the basic Topic, Concept, Task and Reference - no specialization The analogy of EDEN to DITA is the same as SGML to XML. EDEN would be a low complexity and low cost way of implementing DITA for organizations that do not require the full current armory. In my extensive and (over-)long experience in the authoring and localization of very complex documents in the automotive and light engineering industries there has been a marked tendency towards simplification - very short granular documents with lots of graphics and little text. The granularity of DITA lends itself to short simple documents with no need of the aforementioned mechanisms. Keeping things simple keeps down the cost and speeds up implementation and tool delivery. The most effective DITA implementations that I have seen to date have in fact followed the EDEN principle. Lets leave the whole panoply of DITA to those who need it, but for 95% of implementations EDEN would suffice. The easier and less complex that we make it, the more acceptance it will gain. When you strip everything away the main benefit of DITA has been to provide a standard set of DTDs for technical documentation. Best Regards, AZ Erik Hennum wrote: > > Hi, Andrzej, Bruce, and Michael: > > Not to protract the thread, but Jim Early and Scott Hudson (I think) > had the insight based on their mapping work that the DITA block > elements are correctly understood as block containers. > > That is, the start tag and end tag declare block boundaries, but the > element itself can contain multiple blocks, as in: > > ... <section> > ....... First block. > ....... <p> > ........... Second block. > ........... <lq> > ........... Third block > ........... </lq> > ........... Fourth block. > ....... </p> > ....... Fifth block. > ... </section> > > From a processing perspective, there's nothing ambiguous about that. > The processor can find the block boundaries without issue. > > From an authoring perspective, it is attractive to be able to avoid > unneeded markup (extra noise) when a list item has a single block. > > ....... <li>Single block.</li> > > but take advantage of additional markup for multiple blocks: > > ....... <li>First block. > ........... <p>Second block</p> > ....... </li> > > People have been doing without issue in HTML for ages. > > So, the big question is whether authors are significantly more likely > to abuse the markup as follows: > > ... <section> > ....... A sentence spanning > ....... <p>A paragraph.</p> > ....... before finishing. > ... </section> > > Than as follows: > > ... <section> > ....... <p>A sentence spanning</p> > ....... <p>A paragraph.</p> > ....... <p>before finishing.</p> > ... </section> > > The markup itself can no more prevent the second case than the first. > > Neither usage would occur to me. Are there are a significant number of > users who would create the first but not the second example? > > > Hoping that's useful, > > > Erik Hennum > ehennum@us.ibm.com > -- email - azydron@xml-intl.com smail - c/o Mr. A.Zydron PO Box 2167 Gerrards Cross Bucks SL9 8XF United Kingdom Mobile +(44) 7966 477 181 FAX +(44) 1753 480 465 www - http://www.xml-intl.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Unless explicitly stated otherwise this message is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer.
begin:vcard fn;quoted-printable:Andrzej Zydro=C5=84 n;quoted-printable:Zydro=C5=84;Andrzej email;internet:azydron@xml-intl.com tel;work:+441494558106 tel;home:+441494532343 tel;cell:+447966477181 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]