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: Groups - zip file of proposed TechComm 2.0 grammar (doctypes) folder uploaded

Submitter's message
I did a first pass at a possible set of doctypes folders for Techcomm 2.0, for the dtd and rng subfolders. I've added a zip file of my swag at a possible doctypes folder for DITA Technical Content 2.0 - for dtd and rng, but not schema sub-folders - to the OASIS document archive.

The following issues came up in the course of creating them:

1. classifyMap grammar file (doctypes/[dtd|rng]/subjectscheme/classifyMap.[dtd|rng])
This file exists in techcomm but not in base 2.0 dita. Why might that be? Where should it go?

2. do we expect implementors to install 'base/doctypes' and 'techcomm/doctypes' (the grammar files) as peer folders, or do we expect them to install entire 'dita' and 'dita_techcomm' as peer folders? The decision has implications for catalog files we supply...

3. does the SVG ZIP file go in doctypes/rng, or in doctypes/rng/svg, or should it be expanded and go somewhere else?

4. I'm assuming we still want to supply a topic.ent and topic.mod file with techcomm, as we do now; does that seem reasonable?

5. Finally, looking at the dita and techcomm grammar files, I can't understand why we aren't packaging the hazardstatement domain with techcomm rather than base. If someone needs the hasardstatement domain, they are almost certainly writing technical documentation. Thoughts on this?

Scott's responses to my questions - he'd offered to review my work - are below

--- from Scott Hudson -------------

1. Not sure why the classifyMap isn?t part of the base.
2. Good question about the base folder vs the entire dita folder. I think if I were wanting to maintain a customization, I?d want the modularity, but not want to have to maintain separate folders for easier deployment. I think I?d lean toward having the grammars as peer folders.
3. Wouldn?t the SVG dir be extracted and not left as a .zip?
4. Yes, I think we still need to provide the topic files, as long as it is easy enough to modify to add or remove elements?
5. Yes, I agree. Hazardstatement should be a part of tech comm.

Please take a look, for anyone concerned with the techcomm package, and think about the above questions, so we can talk about them tomorrow.


-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
Document Name: zip file of proposed TechComm 2.0 grammar (doctypes) folder

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

Submitter: Ms. Nancy Harrison
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Support materials
Date submitted: 2019-04-08 11:29:42

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