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: [dita] DITA 1.3 errata 02: How to mark changes in a code example when the only change is the order

My 2 cents:

If the change is in the order of two paragraphs, then the containing block should be marked as changed, not the individual paragraphs. I don’t know if DitaWeb allows that, but it is the only logical way of doing this. This is also true for entire paragraphs that were deleted: the change is in the internal structure of the containing block, so that block gets its @rev bumped. 

Jang F.M. Graat
Smart Information Design
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Cell: +31 646 854 996

On 16 Jan 2018, at 01:24, Tom Magliery <tom.magliery@xmetal.com> wrote:

This might be considered related to another thing I commented about on DITAweb (just now). There are two "simple deletions" of bits of text in the errata. In one case, the entire paragraph that contained the deletion is revision-marked in the HTML "spec+errata" output. In the other case, there is NO revision mark. As I commented on DITAweb, these need to be handled consistently, one way or the other.
If the decision is to revision-mark the entire containing paragraph, that seems somehow to also be consistent with the revision marking that you suggested here for these rearranged bits of content.
From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:kris@eberleinconsulting.com] 
Sent: January 12, 2018 5:59 AM
To: Tom Magliery; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: DITA 1.3 errata 02: How to mark changes in a code example when the only change is the order

Hi, Tom.

I looked more carefully at the topic in question. The change that we made is not easy to "change mark," as it involved changing the order of sections in a code example.

Here's the link to the errata 01 topic:


Note in the example that <context> is incorrectly before <prereq>; this is what we fix in errata 02. How should we mark this change? Wrap both the elements in a <ph rev="errata-02>?


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

On 1/11/2018 3:15 PM, Tom Magliery wrote:
Ok, cool. I think I saw at least two other topics with similar problems. I'll flag them if someone else hasn't beat me to it by the next time I'm in DITAweb.
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Kristen James Eberlein
Sent: January 10, 2018 6:12 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] TC review of DITA 1.3 Errata 2, Jan 9-15 2018

Hi, Tom.

I've looked at the two comments that you made in DITAweb. In both cases, you identified a problem with the DITA source:

  • One topic used the incorrect value for the @rev attribute, so the change was not marked. I corrected that issue in the source.
  • In the other topic, the changes do not have @rev attribute applied at all. It needs fixing.

This is exactly why we conduct reviews. Thanks for catching these errors.


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

On 1/10/2018 6:44 PM, Tom Magliery wrote:
I started making comments on DITAweb about some inconsistencies I (thought I) was seeing in the Errata, but now I've seen enough of them that I'm really beginning to wonder whether:
a) I'm looking at the wrong documents or
b) I have some kind of fundamental misunderstanding or
c) The wrong documents are in the wrong places or
d) Something's badly wrong with the documents
The problems I'm seeing: Changes are listed in the big table in the errata (XHTML version), but when I look at the corresponding topics in the Spec+Errata (XHTML version) I'm seeing different things (or I think in one case no thing) marked with the little red triangles.
Both the Errata and the Spec+Errata that I'm looking at are from this ZIP that was linked in Alan's message below:
I'm looking at the Errata in this folder:
And I'm looking at the Spec+Errata in this folder:
For a couple of specific examples, see the comments I've already made on DITAweb.
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Alan Houser
Sent: January 9, 2018 11:28 AM
To: dita
Subject: [dita] TC review of DITA 1.3 Errata 2, Jan 9-15 2018


The DITA 1.3 Errata 02 is available on DITAweb for TC review. This is our final opportunity to review the errata before public review. This is a short review; comments are due by Monday, January 15. 

Be sure to review the draft in XHTML or PDF, then enter any comments into DITAweb. (DITAweb can introduce formatting glitches; it is only the review platform).

PDF (Errata + Spec w/Errata incorporated):  

XHTML (Errata + Spec w/Errata incorporated):  

Objectives of the review

Ensure that:

  • The errata document does not contain any typos or glitches.
  • All changes listed in the errata document are clearly change marked in the the DITA 1.3 Errata 02 spec.
  • All changes marked in the body of the DITA 1.3 Errata 02 specification are listed in the errata 02 document.

Using DITAWeb

When you authenticate to https://ditaweb.com/oasis-dita, you should see the errata in the Publications pane under "Open reviews". Your DITAweb user ID should be <first initial><family name>.

If you don't have a DITAweb account, or need DITAweb assistance, let me know. 

Thanks to Congility for providing DITAweb and DITAweb support to the TC!

Alan Houser
Group Wellesley, Inc.
Consultant and Trainer, Technical Publishing
arh on Twitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

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