Re: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic TaskType

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 11/13/08 7:53 AM, "JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> wrote:

> Hi Bob,
> I tend to agree with you. I cannot find any rationale in the memos (so
> far) for the <process> alternative in task. I can't think of what it's
> supposed to handle that cannot already be handled by steps or
> steps-unordered. Haven't heard back from Alan Houser, however, who
> originally proposed it.

My somewhat dim memory is that this also allows for task content that is
prose rather than a single-step <steps> element.

That is, a task is a task if it describes how to do something, regardless of
how that description is structured. Forcing task to always use <steps> is
inappropriately strict for the base DITA specification.

Of course your specialization task can impose whatever constraints you
consider appropriate.

Cheers,

Eliot

----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>