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: Re: [dita] Proposal 13056: Extension to syntax for built-in selection attributes

Hi Eliot,

When writing up the phase 2 proposal, I kept thinking there should be
something in there about subject schemes, but eventually decided that 1) it
wasn't a critical part of the proposal, 2) implementations could probably
do extra scheme validation whether or not the spec describes it, and 3)
trying to come up with a good description made my head spin so I decided to
keep it out of the main proposal.

My thought process was - you can have a subject scheme that declares the
key "product", and then declares "database" and "appserver" as sub-keys. An
application is (or should be) well within its rights to do fancy validation
on that - to make sure any group within @product is defined as a
subcategory of product within your scheme. However, I don't think we can or
should mandate that, which is why I stopped working on language for it.

I think options for including it are:
1) Make it a non-normative example
2) It can be left as part of 13115 (proposal to explicitly connect ditaval
and subject scheme); I'm planning to send a note out about that proposal
this week
3) Somebody can help work out good language to describe this as an optional
part of the current feature 13056.

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)

From:	Eliot Kimber <ekimber@rsicms.com>
To:	dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>,
Date:	03/02/2013 08:41
Subject:	[dita] Proposal 13056: Extension to syntax for built-in
            selection attributes
Sent by:	<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

I like this proposal very much.

The one thing that comes to mind is adding, or at least mentioning as a
possibility, the use of subjectScheme maps to declare and validate
user-defined groups.

That is, I'd like the option, as a DITA system administrator, the option to
formally define what groups authors should be allowed to use by using
subjectScheme maps, which I would likely already be using to define value
uses for use in conditional attributes.

I'm not sure what would be required--I haven't thought this idea through
I wouldn't want something like this to overburden the proposal, but it
like a natural extension of the current use of subjectSchemes for defining
attribute value lists.



Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect, RSI Content Solutions
"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
Main: 512.554.9368
Book: DITA For Practitioners, from XML Press,

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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