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

[Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>]

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