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: Spec question

I agree that the hazard statement domain does not make sense in subjectScheme maps. Nonetheless, that domain was included in the subjectScheme shells that OASIS shipped for 1.2. Trust both the spec and the DTDs.

Personally, I always remove the hazard statement and mapgroup domains from subjectScheme document-type shells when I create them for clients. And often the utilities and highlighting domain as well.


Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)

On 5/28/2015 9:01 AM, Julio Vazquez wrote:

Hi Kris,


We’re having an internal discussion about Vasont configuration and are looking at SubjectScheme maps. I think there’s some confusion about the containment statements in the spec and I’d like to get some clarity to help my case. For example, the contains by statement for hazardstatement  (http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/langref/hazardstatement.html#hazardstatement) would have you believe that a hazardstatement can appear directly in the SubjectScheme map.


From a logical viewpoint, this makes no sense because a hazardstatement is a topic construct, not a map construct. Of course, following the domain inclusions in the DTD, it should be allowable within the map.


So the question becomes should I trust the spec or the mod file for the actual configuration of Vasont?


Julio J. Vazquez

Senior Content Analyst

Vasont Systems

A TransPerfect Company 

Skype: tpt_jvazquez


+1 717-793-3895


The information in this email is confidential and intended for those to whom it is addressed.



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