Updated Strategy for DITA 1.2 Proposal 12020 (Reuse of small text)

I've already said why I think it's a
mistake to consider <keyword> generic and without semantics.  I
won't repeat myself.  But, in the interests of moving the proposal
forward, I'll upload a version of proposal #12020 that more closely matches
what you want.

There are still two base elements (<term>
and <tm>) which allow only straight #PCDATA.  I contend that
these should take <text> and not <keyword> into their content
models because otherwise you could have a <tm> containing a <keyword>
containing a <tm> containing a ... and I don't think that's good
design.

There are still a couple of dozen elements
in DITA standard domains which allow neither <ph> nor <keyword>.
 They are listed in the proposal.

--

Deborah Pickett

Information Architect, Moldflow Corporation, Melbourne



Michael Priestley <>

19/09/2007 01:50 AM

To



cc

, ,
"Grosso, Paul" <>, 

Subject

Re: [dita] RE: Updated Strategy for
DITA 1.2 Proposal 12020 (Reuse of small text)

This would add <text> to a lot of different contexts, which is exactly
what I didn't want, since it has no semantics tied to it, and if we add
semantics to it then we have yet another phrase-level ancestor with nothing
to choose between it vs. ph/keyword.

My proposal was to add <text> to <ph> and <keyword> (and
their specializations) only, so it is always in a context that can be (or
has been) specialized to provide semantics. This would allow reuse below
the <ph> or <keyword> level without adding yet another peer
element that competes with them as a specialization ancestor.

Most contexts that allow PCDATA should already allow either <keyword>
or <ph> or both - if we find a case that doesn't, I'd suggest adding
whichever makes sense, but NOT adding <text> itself.

Michael Priestley

Lead IBM DITA Architect



http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

Stan Doherty <>

Sent by:  

09/11/2007 07:25 AM

Please respond to



To

"Grosso, Paul" <>

cc

, 

Subject

Re: [dita] RE: Updated Strategy for
DITA 1.2 Proposal 12020 (Reuse of small text)

Hi Paul --

You are correct. Deborah Pickett has drafted a proposal (attached) for

TC and offline discussion. If the sentiment of the TC is to proceed with

her proposal as the foundation for ongoing discussion (my

recommendation), Deborah or I will upload the XML as an official

proposal for 12020.

Many many thanks to Deborah for jumping in here.

Stan

Grosso, Paul wrote:

> I'll reply to this message, though I have also seen some later ones.

>

> I think we will need to see an actual new proposal before we'll

> be able to make any progress on this.  As it stands, I still

> don't have a good idea what is being proposed.

>

> paul

>

>  

>>