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] Jang's DITA 2.0 proposal (Was "Re: [dita] Phase 1 proposal: expand howtoavoid")


Hello Kris,

I will be present in today’s TC meeting. My proposal was already sent to the mailing list on May 10. My mail lists all the issues, but the most important ones are #2, #3, #4.

I question the intention that the hazardstatement domain is a base for specialisation. It is specifically designed to match the requirements of the ANSI hazard statement, and that standard does not allow any deviation from the prescribed framework (4 types of hazard only and a defined content model). If people want to specialise the hazardstatement they deviate from the intention of implementing ANSI and that should be clear. This is a reason for me to propose that the hazardstatement is moved from the base to the technicalContent directory where it should have been from the start.

I am all set for the discussion if there is space on today’s agenda.

Kind regards

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


On 26 May 2018, at 16:01, Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:

Jang, if you want to suggest a proposal for DITA 2.0, give me a date that you can be present at a DITA TC meeting, submit your item to the list, and I will place it on the agenda.

Please remember that the hazard statement is intended to be an appropriate base for specialization for many purposes.

Best,
Kris

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

On 5/26/2018 9:43 AM, Jang wrote:
I don’t think the discussion about my proposed changes can be concluded without me being present in the meeting. There are plenty of points where the hazardstatement implementation can and should be improved. The fact that no one present had difficulties does not say that the domain complies to ANSI Z535.6, which is what it intended to do.

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


On 16 May 2018, at 17:12, Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:

Jang, we discussed the hazardstatement domain at yesterday's TC meeting. No one present had experienced any difficulties with the domain; everyone thinks it is adequate as-is.

We did agree that expanding the content model for <howtoavoid> would be appropriate.

Best,
Kris

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

On 5/15/2018 6:19 PM, Jang wrote:
Hi Dawn,

This should of course be combined with my proposal to revise the hazardstatement domain. I can see no real objections to adding a <p>, <ol>, <ul>. I would like to do a little more research among users of hazardstatement to find out which elements are actually being used and which are missing.

Also, I would not add a <div> or a <dl>. I would rather remove <simpletable>. The <howtoavoid> should really be a very short statement of avoiding an identified danger. When <simpletable> or <dl> is required, there is something seriously wrong with the content that the author is trying to cram into a <hazardstatement>.

Kind regards from Shanghai

Jang

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


On 15 May 2018, at 23:58, Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com> wrote:

If you’re going to add p you might as well add div too. I could also see an argument for dl as an alternative to simpletable.
 
Cheers,
 
E.
 
--
Eliot Kimber
 
 
 
From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Dawn Stevens <dawn.stevens@Comtech-serv.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM
To: "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita] Phase 1 proposal: expand howtoavoid
 
From our discussion today, I’ve put together a Phase 1 proposal for expanding the content model within <howtoavoid>.
I’ve never written a Phase 1 proposal.  Hopefully I have put what is needed in it, but if I need more, please advise.
 
Thanks,
Dawn
 
 
Phase 1 proposal: Add elements to <howtoavoid>
 
Requirement:

An important requirement when writing hazard statements that conform to ISO and ANSI requirements is providing information on how to avoid the potential hazard. Often there are multiple ways to avoid the problem; however, there are currently limited elements available to itemize these ways. Users are forced to use <sl> to provide multiple lines of content and adjust their stylesheets to add bullets or other distinguishing formatting. 

We need to provide additional block elements in the model to make it easier to include multiple ways to avoid.

Proposal:

The current model for <howtoavoid> content is:

<!ENTITY % hazard.cnt 
  "#PCDATA | 
   %basic.ph; | 
   %sl; | 
   %simpletable;"
>

I propose adding p, ol, and ul at a minimum to this model.

<!ENTITY % hazard.cnt 
  "#PCDATA | 
   %basic.ph; | 
   %p; |
   %sl; | 
   %ul; |
   %ol; |
   %simpletable;"
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]