[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Issue with leaningObjectMap content model
Would the following help: Use a <learningObjectMap> to create standalone aggregations of <learningContent> together with its supporting plan, overview, summary, and assessments, according to the needs identified by the learning goals
and objectives. While it is possible to include multiple <learningObject> in a <learningObjectMap>, how processors deal with those additional instances of <learningObject> will be processor dependent.
The last sentence can be struck from the spec since it’s no longer possible to add topicref elements with the changes in the errata. Since we can’t add any new language that is normative, then what I’m trying
to say is that you can have multiple learningObject, but how they are processed is in the hand of the processors. Éric Sirois DITA Toolsmith IXIASOFT 825 Querbes, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2V 3X1 tel + 1 514 279-4942 / toll free + 1 877 279-4942 mobile + 1 647 462-3620 eric.sirois@ixiasoft.com
/
www.ixiasoft.com
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Kristen James Eberlein We cannot make the change to the written spec that Eliot suggests; it would introduce normative wording. The grammar files are normative, so what we should do is change the spec language to reflect the reality of the grammar files. With DITA 1.2 (and perhaps earlier), we stated that if there was a discrepancy between the written specification and the grammar files, the written spec took precedence. However, as we prepared DITA 1.3, OASIS made it clear to us that their processes required
that the grammar files be normative. Best, On 8/17/2016 6:35 PM, Éric Sirois wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]