[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] foreign element description issue (non-XML?)
On 12/27/09 12:07 PM, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote: > See my suggested wording at the bottom of this email. > > I suggest that as the resolution. > > Note, no where does my wording suggest that the content of > the foreign element is restricted in such a fashion that > would prohibit rtf or troff or what have you. On the other > hand, no where does it suggest that the content of the > foreign element no longer has to be well-formed xml which > is what the "non-XML" wording more than implies, that's > in fact what it says outright and which is wrong. I am generally happy with Paul's suggested working, quoted here: > What I've suggested for a replacement for this paragraph (fixing some > other wording problems) is: > > The <foreign> element allows the introduction of non-DITA content such > as MathML, SVG, or some textual data format. If <foreign> contains more > than one alternative content element, they should all be processed. > Specialization of <foreign> should be implemented as a domain, but > architects looking for more control over the content may implement > foreign vocabularies as structural specializations. > I'd have to review this in the context of the larger topic to make sure there isn't some subtlety, but I think it captures the intent of indicating that textual (non-markup) content is allowed and meaningful without using the term "non-XML". Cheers, E. -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 610.631.6770 www.reallysi.com www.rsuitecms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]