[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Stage two proposal #647 for review: "Remove classification domain and add new attribute"
|
Excellent catch! I’ve fixed that. Kris From: Brennecke, Carsten <carsten.brennecke@sap.com> Hi Kris, thx for the solid proposal and the feedback already provided by Gershon.
In Figure 4 there is a <keydef> without a @keys attribute. Is this correct? Best regards/viele Grüße Carsten From: kris eberleinconsulting.com <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
Hi, Gershon. Thanks for your review. Here are my responses to your comments: Gershon: I wonder if there is a potential use case to associate an image with taxonomy terms. I don't see why this could not be done, in which
case @subjectrefs could potentially be applicable to a keydef that defines an image location. Kris: I don’t want to dilute the focus on classifying topics by allowing @subjectref to be applied to any sub-topic element. This is a very late
DITA 2.0 proposal, and we need to keep the focus tight and limited. Gershon: Do we need to add to the text above or below the example code that the key definitions shown in the code are assumed to be defined elsewhere
in the map? This would prevent a user from being confused about what's being referenced. Or, we could add some or all of the keydefs to the sample code. Personally I prefer the former suggestion. Kris: I added a note after the code block in figure 1, indicating that the key definitions were defined elsewhere. Gershon: This is an interesting use case that is both very powerful and also very dangerous. We need to carefully explain this in the spec Kris: We need to enable @subjectrefs on key definitions, to make it parallel with enabling IAs to specify @format, @scope, and @type on key definitions.
But I don’t think we need to carefully explain this in the spec, since the spec is not a user guide or document that teaches people how to use DITA. That is
a point that anyone doing DITA education will need to carefully explain. Thanks for the speedy review, Kris From: Gershon Joseph <gershon@precisioncontent.com>
Hi Kris, This is a solid proposal that appears to be complete. Please see my comments here: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:087e9205-9147-3824-8c04-1f499e9ba3c5 Cheers, Gershon From: kris eberleinconsulting.com <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
Stage two proposal (PDF) format is attached. The reviewers are Carsten Brennecke and Gershon Joseph. Carsten and Gershon, if you could get back any review comments by the end of the week, I’d appreciate it. Best, Kris
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]