OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Discussion time for Learning & Training feature proposal 13106

Dear DITA TC members,

The Learning and Training sub-committee has completed an initial draft of feature proposal 13106.  See the latest HTML version here - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-learningspec/download.php/45630/proposal-13106-learning-new-interaction.html

This feature proposal comes as a response to the need to provide the ability to include multiple paragraphs and other block elements in questions, responses, feedback, and other elements used in the question-interactions domain that was included with DITA 1.2. A total of 26 such elements need this support. The feature proposal provides more detail on the use cases, sample questions, and technical implementation for the new specialization.

At our meeting last Thursday, the sub-committee had a good discussion with Robert Anderson and Eric Sirois about the technical implementation. Neither saw any technical issues with our approach. Robert, however raised the larger problem of the need the proposal raises to essentially duplicate 26 of the elements in the current question-interactions domain, in order to add the needed support for multiple block elements.

At this point, we'd like to schedule 30 minutes time at an upcoming TC agenda to brief the TC about the status of the proposal and get advice on the options available. Specifically, how to balance the clear need from the DITA practitioner community to support block elements in questions against the need for parsimony and simplicity in the DITA spec?

Robert suggested some possible approaches -

1) Go with the current proposal -- for each of the 26 <element> items, make a new <elementDiv> with virtually the same model and deliver both domains as alternative options. This maintains backward compatibility, but adds considerable complexity and potential confusion. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

2) Break backwards compatibility (change the base from <fig> to <div>, and disallow title). This is probably impossible to justify as long as we're producing one monolithic doc, given statements on 1.* releases. If L&T 1.3 is a standalone package, is it allowed to break the compatibility rule?

3) If we are able to break out L&T from the main spec - what if it gets its own numbering? Part of the discussion to come, then -- could this actually be "L&T 2.0", allowing the SC more flexibility (and letting us address other related issues like this)? If it is L&T 2.0, can it really be part of an umbrella approval?

4) Defer the issue. Eliot, Amber, JoAnn and others are all stuck using alternatives to the standard L&T until this is changed in the future.


John Hunt

Chair, OASIS DITA Learning and Training content subcommittee

John P. Hunt
Senior Technical Content Architect
IBM Collaboration Solutions | User Experience: Design and Information Excellence
john_hunt@us.ibm.com | 978.899.2394; t/l 276.2394

Join our community | Team blog | Product Wikis

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]