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] Stage One Proposal: Change the specialization base of imagemap


My argument against putting imagemap in the base is that it is a little-used element and the actual design of it may not be ideal (one could think of other ways to associate linkable regions with images). Adding it to the base would add element types that few DITA users ever use a privilege a particular design where the current design is not privileged (because use of any domain is never mandatory).

I don't think "quality of the implementation" and "taxonomic position" should be influencing each other quite that much; it's not hard to argue that the specification and implementation of <image> isn't what it ought to be, for example.  If <imagemap> is meant to be a universal functionality (if out of completeness rather than widespread need), I would think it belongs in base.  If it's meant (once <sort-order> is out of there) to be the initial part of a "we could write an image module and deal with the recursive can of worms around images and multi-channel publishing", sure, it belongs in a domain.

<title> in <imagemap> is likely the simplest thing but I suspect it doesn't solve the problem; the problem sounded like it's a combination of "I want imagemap in fig so I get all the fig-associated processing I already have" and "how do I associate a title with <imagemap>"; adding title to the imagemap element's content model fixes the second of those, but not the first.

Graydon Saunders | Publishing Solutions Developer | Precision Content 
Direct: +1
 (647)265-8500 x106Email: graydon@precisioncontent.com | www.precisioncontent.com

 


 

Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterpriseâ


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please notify us by return email if you have received this email in error. Â2019, Precision Content Authoring Solutions Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada


From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>
Sent: 09 July 2019 15:55
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] Stage One Proposal: Change the specialization base of imagemap
 
My argument against putting imagemap in the base is that it is a little-used element and the actual design of it may not be ideal (one could think of other ways to associate linkable regions with images). Adding it to the base would add element types that few DITA users ever use a privilege a particular design where the current design is not privileged (because use of any domain is never mandatory).

I also like the idea of simply allowing <title> within imagemap--that might be the simplest solution to meeting Zoe's original requirement.

I think it's more appropriate as a standalone domain, even if it's a very simple one.

I think it's easier to justify adding sort-as to the base since it's clearly a fundamental facility that some languages (Japanese, Traditional Chinese) must use for almost any lexical ordering situation and other languages often have need for.

Cheers,

E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
 

ïOn 7/9/19, 3:23 PM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:

   
     
       
     
     
        So we have two possibilities here:
       
         
    * Add <imagemap> and its child elements to base -- also
            <sort-as>
         
         
    * Change the specialization base for <imagemap> and area
            to <div>
       
   
        Which makes most sense?
       
        Best,
          Kris
         
          Kristen James Eberlein
          Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
          Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
          www.eberleinconsulting.com <http://www.eberleinconsulting.com>
          +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)
         
       
        On 7/9/2019 3:14 PM, Eliot Kimber
          wrote:
       
       
          [I sent this to Zoe yesterday but had intended to send to the main list]
   
    ï<div> should be the best choice but would need to think it through:
   
    <imagemap> allows <image> and <area>
   
    <area> is currently a specialization of <figgroup>.
   
    <figgroup> is essentially the semantic equivalent to <div> so it would make sense to also make <area> a specialization of <div>.
   
    <div> allows all the elements from which the subelements of <area> are specialized, so that works.
   
    One way to evaluate a specialization design is to generalize it back to the base types and verify that the result is still valid. If it is, then the specialization meets that requirement.
   
    So using <div> for <imagemap> and <area> definitely passes that test.
   
    Then the other question is whether or not the specialization is semantically consistent with the base, which is a more subjective question. But in this case, <div> has no semantic beyond "container" so hard not to be semantically consistent with it. Ditto for <area> specialized from <div>.
   
    Cheers,
   
    E.
   
    --
    Eliot Kimber
    http://contrext.com
    
   
    ïOn 7/8/19, 8:30 PM, "Zoe Lawson" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of zoelawson17@hotmail.com> <mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.orgonbehalfofzoelawson17@hotmail.com> wrote:
   
       
        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,
        Zoà Lawson
       
       
   
   
   
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    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
   
   
   



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