Re: [dita] Implicit work for DITA 1.1

Hi, Don:

The implications would be:

Add outputclass attribute to the attribute list for topicref and specializations.

Use values where appropriate during output processing.  For instance, during HTML processing, add values from the outputclass attribute on the topicref to the values from the outputclass attribute on the referenced topic to produce a full list of class values on the generated <div> that wraps the topic content.

The outputclass attribute doesn't specify a real type (neither on the topic elements nor on the map elements), only an informal role, so no cast is involved.

Hoping that clarifies,

Erik Hennum



Don Day/Austin/IBM

Don Day/Austin/IBM

02/23/2006 12:37 PM

To

Erik Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS

cc

"DITA TC list " <>

Subject

Re: [dita] Implicit work for DITA 1.1

What is the extent of this fix, Erik? Simply adding its declaration into the attlist for topicref?  And what are the processing implications? I assume the normal behavior would be "ignore," but can see an extended behavior of providing some kind of cast to the referenced topic (possibly non-trivial).

Regards,

--

Don Day

Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

IBM Lead DITA Architect

Email:  

11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758

Phone: +1 512-838-8550

T/L: 678-8550 

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

 Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

   --T.S. Eliot 

Erik Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS

Erik Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS 

02/23/2006 01:12 PM

To

Don Day/Austin/IBM@IBMUS

cc

"DITA TC list " <>

Subject

Re: [dita] Implicit work for DITA 1.1

Hi, Don and Committee Folk:

With regard to

* "bug fixes" for the specification docs (gather all comments and known reports)

One bug that's fallen through the cracks is that the outputclass attribute is available only on the topic elements and not on the map elements. As a result, a writer can't indicate special kinds of topic relationship in the map.

The outputclass attribute provides an informal mechanism for narrowing the semantic of the element. We might think of it as a role or the poor man's specialization -- an approach available to writers without defining new schema modules.

If we agree that's a bug fix, we might address it in DITA 1.1. If we feel it's an enhancement, we should defer it until DITA 1.2 to maintain our focus and momentum.

Thanks,

Erik Hennum