I checked with some folks internally and we do have a few clients that are using it. One is using it with customizations to deal with regional /national differences. Not sure about the others at
Is there a URL or document that lists the differences between
ANSI Z535 and ANSI Z535.6 or the various revisions, at a high level.
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
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Behalf Of Jang
Sent: May 8, 2018 1:05 PM
To: DITA TC <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for a safety domain in DITA 2.0
I guess these companies must have created their own rendering then, because until recently, none of the publishing tools did anything even remotely correct with it. But even if companies are using it, there are a number of things that are
not correct about it when checking it against ANSI Z535.6, which is mandatory at least in the machinery industry.
So if we are checking with clients who are using the hazard statement, please also include feedback on whether these clients have done their own rendering transforms, and whether they have any comments about incompatibilities, incompleteness
or hard-to-use features of the domains. Just the fact that companies are using it does not say it was well designed.
Jang F.M. Graat
Smart Information Design
Cell: +31 646 854 996
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?
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
+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.
Jang F.M. Graat
Smart Infornation Design
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: