[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Standard DITA processing instructions?
I suggest that the real differentiator should be whether the item
is useful, persistent, human-readable metadata or if simply transitory machine-readable
data. The former managed as elements and attributes and the latter managed as
PIs. I think change tracking is very transitory and of little value
as human-readable metadata (unlike change history or review comments which are
human-readable). Change tracking really has little value outside of the editing
environment. Change bars and other change tracking marks do not usually persist
beyond a single revision. For what it is worth, I think this is a good use of PIs. Cheers, Rob Hanna From: Ogden, Jeff
[mailto:jogden@ptc.com] I think the DITA TC could include discussion of “DITA
standard PIs” in the spec. I think having something standard for change tracking would be a
good thing, but I wonder if that might not be better done in a way that would
work for DITA and non-DITA document types. And if you buy into that, the
question is what group would be a good one to work on it? I guess it
could be a recommendation from the DITA TC that had wider application than just
DITA, but I can imagine that there may be some other group that might be
appropriate and willing to do that work too. I think you have to look at using PIs vs. more traditional
element/attribute markup on a case by case basis. An advantage of PIs is that implementations that don’t
understand or support a particular PI should ignore them. That
isn’t as true for element markup. In the case of change tracking, I think there could be some real
advantages to using PIs. -Jeff From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]