Proposal 12017 - consistency between map & topic metadata and abstract vs shortdesc

Link to proposal 
12017: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/24420/IssueNumber12017.html

With this proposal, 
the committee is making an effort to increase concistency between maps and 
topics. However, it also states: The map 
metadata will still have several elements that are not present in topic prologs: 
linktext, searchtitle, shortdesc, and (assuming that implementation of item 
#12018 results in this element) navtitle.

 

With the arrival of 
abstracts in DITA 1.1 topics, the proposed usage 
of <abstract/> and <shortdesc/> is as 
follow: 

 

   * 
Abstract: Full sentences that can be used for automated overviews, summaries. 
They are also the topics' first paragraph.

   * 
Shortdesc: Phrases, sentence segments that provide 'hints' when users 
roll over related links or xrefs.

 

Keeping shortdesc 
instead of including abstract in the map metadata may lead to inconsistency on 
the way people use the shortdesc element in maps and topics. Are shortdesc 
elements in map used for 'roll over' purposes only? I'm not sure a partial 
sentence is very useful, even as metadata.

 

Since this may bring 
up the whole transitional text discussion, the committee has moved to 
accept proposal 12017 as is, but has suggested that we bring up this 
discussion on the list. So here it is: should we introduce abstract in map 
metadata for the sake of consistency in the way elements are 
used?

 

France 
Baril

Documentation 
Architect/Architecte documentaire

IXIASOFT

tel.:         
+ 1 514 279-4942 x350

               
+ 1 877 279-IXIA x350

fax:         
+ 1 514 279-3947



[   www.ixiasoft.com   ]

 

Let's Talk XML

 

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM