Re: [dita] Another request for steps-informal example

[Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>]

Bob wrote:
>I am glad that steps-informal is part
of 1.2 because it provides a good deal of architectural flexibility. However,
it having it 
>there for authoring is not such a good
idea. I feel strongly enough about this that I will be advising my clients
to use the 
>constraints mechanism to remove steps-informal
from their authoring environments. 

I believe we plan to deliver two versions
of task: one that is loose, for authoring groups who don't want the constrained
authoring in <steps>, and one that does exactly what you want: continue
to provide the constrained and semantic environment that we already know
from DITA 1.0/1.1.

>Should they come up with use cases where
informal-steps would solve a problem, I will encourage them to look deeper
into the 
>semantics of the use cases, and then
to specialize informal-steps using those semantics rather than using informal-steps
>directly.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25