[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 and I wouldn't want something like this to overburden the proposal, but it seems like a natural extension of the current use of subjectSchemes for defining attribute value lists. Cheers, E. -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect, RSI Content Solutions "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 512.554.9368 www.rsicms.com www.rsuitecms.com Book: DITA For Practitioners, from XML Press, http://xmlpress.net/publications/dita/practitioners-1/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]