[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Re: Stage One Proposal: Change the specialization base of imagemap
I think putting utilities domain elements in base makes sense.
Does the hypothesized base element <imagemap> get added to the content models of elements other than <fig>?
Graydon Saunders | Publishing Solutions Developer | Precision
Content
Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise™
From: Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
Sent: 09 July 2019 09:17 To: Graydon Saunders; Zoe Lawson; DITA TC Subject: Re: [dita] Re: Stage One Proposal: Change the specialization base of imagemap Would it be reasonable to add <imagemap> and its related elements to the base vocabulary? An image map is not really (IMO) a figure; it's just specialized from there out of technical convenience and a lack of other viable alternatives. If a construct cannot be described as a kind of something in the base vocabulary, I think it's a pretty good candidate for adding it there. If it were in the base, we could make it available wherever we wanted.
Currently, <imagemap> is in the Utilities domain. It and its related elements are the only thing in the Utilities domain other than <sort-as> which, similar to <imagemap>, I think should probably be promoted to the base vocabulary, now that I look at it. While I suppose you could say sorting instructions are a kind of <data>, <sort-as> performs a pretty critical function in many common use cases; having it off in an obviously "I-don't-know-what-to-call-it-so-let's-just-call-it-Utilities" domain is less than ideal.
So maybe this should be a Stage 1 proposal for adding the current Utilities domain to the base vocabulary.
Chris
From:
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Graydon Saunders <graydon@precisioncontent.com>
If the goal is to specialize the imagemap element from a different base element than fig,
<imagemap class="+ topic/fig ut-d/imagemap "> <image class="- topic/image " /> <area class="+ topic/figgroup ut-d/area "> <shape class="+ topic/keyword ut-d/shape " /> <coords class="+ topic/ph ut-d/coords " /> <xref class="- topic/xref " /> </area> </imagemap>
I think the difficulty is likely to be the area element child of imagemap. The area element is specialized from figgroup; figgroup occurs only as a child of fig or figgroup. (Or equation-figure, specialized from fig.) It'd be difficult to specialize imagemap from another element without adding figgroup to that element's content model.
Because imagemap is specialized from fig, it could have its content model changed to include fig's optional title:
<imagemap class="+ topic/fig ut-d/imagemap "> <title class="- topic/title " /> <image class="- topic/image " /> <area class="+ topic/figgroup ut-d/area "> <shape class="+ topic/keyword ut-d/shape " /> <coords class="+ topic/ph ut-d/coords " /> <xref class="- topic/xref " /> </area> </imagemap>
If you want specifically to allow:
<fig class="- topic/fig "> <title class="- topic/title " /> <imagemap class="+ topic/fig ut-d/imagemap "> <image class="- topic/image " /> <area class="+ topic/figgroup ut-d/area "> <shape class="+ topic/keyword ut-d/shape " /> <coords class="+ topic/ph ut-d/coords " /> <xref class="- topic/xref " /> </area> </imagemap> </fig>
the simplest approach is to change the content model of the fig element to allow fig as a child, which would then logically permit imagemap and other specializations of fig as children of fig.
What the committee considers desirable I could not say.
Graydon Saunders | Publishing Solutions Developer | Precision Content
Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise™
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Zoe Lawson <zoelawson17@hotmail.com>
Originally, <imagemap> was a specialization of <fig>. This means you cannot use an <imagemap> directly inside of a <fig>, which makes it complicated to add a title to your image. You can work around this by using a <div> inside of the <fig>, but that seems like an extra layer of complexity.
If we change the specialization base of <imagemap> from <fig> to something slightly more generic such as <div>, that may simplify the adding of a title (or other content) around an <imagemap> in a <fig>.
I would like some technical assistance determining which element makes the most sense to specialize from.
Thanks, Zoë Lawson |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]