[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] History of the glossref Design?
I have a client that wants to use glossref but the are running into issue with the print=no. They are using basic topicrefs instead or overriding the @print value.
Eric
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@jeppesen.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 12:07:46 PM To: Eliot Kimber; dita@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [dita] History of the glossref Design? Agreed. I have been exercising a lot of term, abbreviated-form and glossentry content lately and can testify to the difficulties. I would like to see this improved in DITA 2.0.
Thanks and best regards,
--Scott
Scott Hudson Digital Aviation Learning & Development
Voting member: OASIS DocBook TC, Publishers SC OASIS DITA TC, Tech Comm SC, LW DITA SC, Learning Content SC OASIS Augmented Reality in Information Products (ARIP) TC
Jeppesen | Digital Aviation | Boeing 55 Inverness Drive East | Englewood, CO 80112 | www.jeppesen.com
This document contains only administrative, uncontrolled data under U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM To: "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [dita] History of the glossref Design? Thanks—that at least provides the original proposal language. Unfortunately the proposal doesn’t actually justify why print=”no” is a useful default for references to glossary topics. It is this default that makes glossref particularly pointless. Requiring @keys makes sense and toc=”no” kind of makes sense, but print=”no” does not make any sense at all as far as I can tell. It also doesn’t explain why linking=”none” is a useful default.
This is clearly something that needs to be addressed in DITA 2.0, probably along with a general reassessment of the glossary topic design.
Cheers,
E.
From:
Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
I remember a lot of the discussion around DITA 1.2 extensions to the glossentry topic - they were long and difficult, with significant expansion of the original (very basic) glossentry topic in DITA 1.1. These extensions were
bundled together with the new abbreviation / acronym support in DITA 1.2.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]