WARNING! The sender of this message may not be who they appear to be. Please be cautious with the content of this email and avoid clicking links or opening attachments. This message appears to be from a Healthwise employee but was sent from outside of Healthwise.
Finished with R. Let me know if you need help with S and T. I have time tomorrow morning.
I found another ??+ in <reqpers>.
I've completed the review of the base version, and didn't find any issues. [Ah, the perks of claiming the base edition.]
Tom found a fairly minor issue in his review that should be addressed - I'm searching to see if that same error shows up elsewhere. Specifically, with some odd models like the <completed> model in bookmap, the spec ended up with two question marks together; searching on similar constructions, I've found another spot that ends with a question mark followed by an asterisk. (That one accurately reflects the grammar file, but looks confusing, so I'll clean it up.)
Debra Bissantz ---07/14/2016 10:16:17 AM---All, Are you checking everything for all elements? I know that originally, we were splitting this up
From: Debra Bissantz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Kristen James Eberlein <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, Tom Magliery <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eliot Kimber <email@example.com>
Date: 07/14/2016 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes
Sent by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Are you checking everything for all elements? I know that originally, we were splitting this up by all-inclusive, tech comm, and base. Would it make more sense to just look at everything for all elements for a specific letter group?
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Kristen James Eberlein
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes
Tom, I just scanned through U,V,W,X, and Y; things look as they should.
I think we probably added <draft-comment> and <required-cleanup> to more places than was optimal --Why would one ever need <draft-comment> within <xmlatt>? -- but it's too late to do anything about that.
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 7/13/2016 8:02 PM, Tom Magliery wrote:
> I've scanned through the content models of the A and B elements in this updated version. There were a significant number of content models that had noticeable changes from the release, and everything looks right enough in the updated version.
> There is no way I can complete scanning C through Y by Friday. If a scan of all of them is necessary, I will need more help.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris Nitchie
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:18 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model
> I’ve posted both the as-published DITA 1.3 spec and the version with Robert’s content model updates for easy comparison. The as-released version is here:
> And the version with the updates is here:
> Two tags for which the updates are really obvious are <chapter> and <section>.
> <chapter> as released:
> <chapter> with updates:
> <section> as released:
> <section> with updates:
> Happy reviewing!
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: