[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Wondering about specentry / spectitle attributes
Hi Robert, I’m in favor of removing these two attribute from the content model in DITA 2.0. We really don’t want translatable content in attributes, and the use cases you mention can be accomplished via stylesheet code. Also, I
don’t think it makes sense to offer default title text on elements that don’t support titles. Cheers, Gershon Gershon Joseph | Senior Information Architect | Precision Content Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise™
From:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Robert Anderson <robert.dan.anderson@oracle.com> Hi, One comment on the latest attribute review in Ditaweb indicated that the specentry attribute on simple table entries is hard to understand. The same comment applies to spectitle, which is available
more widely. Both are listed as "not for use by authors" and are meant to be set in grammar files. I've been frustrated by them in the past and wonder if we should remove them from 2.0. The original idea behind each of these is that you can create a specialized DTD/RNG file that sets default or fixed values for a new specialized element. For example, you can create a specialized
section called <productDetails> with a default attribute spectitle="Product details". That default value then becomes the default title for the specialized section.
For specentry, you would create a specialized simpletable entry like <proptypehd> that sets a default attribute of specentry="Property type". In this case, if you use the element but leave it empty,
that becomes the default value. This presents a few problems:
Do we need to keep these attributes in DITA 2.0? I only see a couple uses for it today, but might be missing some:
Thanks, Robert |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]