Re: [dita] Proposal for a safety domain in DITA 2.0

[Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>]

Jang, there are manufacturing companies that use the current hazard 
statement domain, so I cannot agree with your assertion that "hardly 
anyone is really using [hazard statements]."

Consultants on the TC, can we get a tally of your clients whom you know 
are using the hazard statement domain?

Best,
Kris

Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)

On 5/8/2018 12:38 PM, Mr. Jang Graat wrote:
> The hazardstatement domain is very poorly designed. There are almost too many things wrong with it, from its placement in the base directory and inclusion in all document shells to the content model for the hazardstatement itself and poor naming of elements. Until very recently, none of the authoring and publishing tools for DITA have done anything even remotely right in rendering hazard statements. Which goes to show that hardly anybody is really using them.
>
> I propose to rework the hazardstatement domain in DITA 2.0 to align it with the ANSI Z535.6 standard on safety information. The new domain should be called safety domain and allow all and only those safety notices and symbols that are covered by the ANSI Z535.6 standard. This includes not only the current hazardstatement (with necessary fixes and constraints applied to it) but also embedded safety notices which follow the same ANSI Z535.6 rules.
>
> I am willing to invest time in implementing the required elements and do the necessary reality checks with users from various industries, so that DITA 2.0 will have a safety domain that is really being used.
>
> I am not currently a voting member of the DITA TC but intend to reach and maintain that status going forward, so that I can become champion for this proposal and take it through the process.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jang F.M. Graat
> Smart Infornation Design
> Amsterdam, Netherlands