RE: [dita] use of <term>

Thanks again, Eliot.

Another approach would be to conref the <term> items into the topic from
the glossary doc. Getting authors to do the lookup and reference would
then be an issue; it's the sort of thing that gets neglected in a
rush--and when is a project not in a rush? [Could offload it to a
process on check-in, and flag the non-conref items at that time rather
than deferring it until publishing.]

	/B

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:46 PM
> To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Christian Kravogel; Alan Houser; dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] use of <term>
> 
> On 3/12/09 11:44 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> wrote:
> 
> >> the standard is law, what Bruce has
> >> presented is interpretation. They are both important but 
> they belong 
> >> in different documents.
> > 
> > Does the interpretation/recommendation document exist?
> > 
> > Glad to know that application is so easy. Must be some 
> other reason no 
> > vendor has responded to that requirement statement by 
> saying "Oh yes, 
> > we do that out of the box."
> 
> I didn't say it was easy, I said the need should be obvious. 
> The actual functionality is pretty sophisticated. Shouldn't 
> be that hard to implement.
> 
> This vendor will in fact respond "we do that out of the box" 
> before too long.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> E.
> 
> ----
> Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
> email:   <mailto:>
> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of 
> the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com 
> <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com 
> <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com 
> <http://www.rsuitecms.com> 
> 
>