AW: [dita] Machine Industry Task question

["SeicoDyne DITA" <dita@seicodyne.ch>]

>> 2. If so, is the TC also OK with specializing closereqs from example, 
>> when it is not an example? Given the close semantic relationship 
>> between prelreqs/prereq and closereqs/postreq, are we OK with having 
>> no defined relationship?

>I certainly object to specializing from example in this case--it seems to
be a clear misuse of example as a base.
>I would certainly be very surprised when I got the default presentation
effect for <example> in my machine industry tasks.

>Why can't closereqs be a specialization of section?

To be honest, at that point I was not sure regarding the specialization
technique.
When I specialize <prelreqs> and <closereqs> from section and the resulting
content model of a mitaskbody:

                       "(((%prelreqs;) | 
                          (%context;) |
                          (%section;))*,
                         ((%steps; | 
                           %steps-unordered; |
                           %process;))?, 
                         (%result;)?, 
                         (%example;)*, 
                         (%closereqs;)*)"

is a valid specialization, then I completely agree to specialize closereqs
from section.

Cheers,
Chris