(Merging
threads)
Using
PIs for change tracking makes sense, and standardization of change-tracking
markup across tools would also be beneficial to XML users if it were possible. I
don’t know the extent to which it would be possible.
However,
I don’t see the use of PIs for change tracking as being a DITA-specific issue
at all. Tool developers would be much more motivated to standardize change-tracking
markup across tools if they only have to do it once for all XML dialects. I
doubt that the change-tracking issues are any different for Docbook or XHTML or
S1000D, however if we’re not the only dialect-specific TC to look into
this issue then in theory the TCs for different dialects could come up with
different standards, and that would be a problem. Is there a more general TC that
could address change-tracking markup?
Su-Laine
Su-Laine Yeo
Interaction Design Specialist
JustSystems Canada, Inc.
Office: 778-327-6356
www.justsystems.com
From: Park Seth-R01164
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:30 AM
To: dita
Subject: RE: [dita] Standard DITA processing instructions?
Importance: Low
I've
captured some information about this suggestion in the DITA wiki:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DitaProcessingInstructions
After
my arch spec responsibilities are completed, I'll try to formalize this
request/idea in a way that can be actionable.
-seth
park
From: Rob Hanna
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 1:48 PM
To: 'Ogden, Jeff'; 'Michael Priestley'; 'Park Seth-R01164'
Cc: 'dita'
Subject: RE: [dita] Standard DITA processing instructions?
I suggest that the real differentiator should be whether the
item is useful, persistent, human-readable metadata or if simply transitory
machine-readable data. The former managed as elements and attributes and the
latter managed as PIs.
I think change tracking is very transitory and of little value as
human-readable metadata (unlike change history or review comments which are
human-readable). Change tracking really has little value outside of the editing
environment. Change bars and other change tracking marks do not usually persist
beyond a single revision.
For what it is worth, I think this is a good use of PIs.
Cheers,
Rob Hanna
From: Ogden, Jeff
[mailto:]
Sent: October 2, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Michael Priestley; Park Seth-R01164
Cc: dita
Subject: RE: [dita] Standard DITA processing instructions?
I think the DITA TC could include discussion of “DITA
standard PIs” in the spec.
I think having something standard for change tracking would be a
good thing, but I wonder if that might not be better done in a way that would
work for DITA and non-DITA document types. And if you buy into that, the
question is what group would be a good one to work on it? I guess it
could be a recommendation from the DITA TC that had wider application than just
DITA, but I can imagine that there may be some other group that might be
appropriate and willing to do that work too.
I think you have to look at using PIs vs. more traditional
element/attribute markup on a case by case basis.
An advantage of PIs is that implementations that don’t
understand or support a particular PI should ignore them. That
isn’t as true for element markup.
In the case of change tracking, I think there could be some real
advantages to using PIs.
-Jeff
From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:12 PM
To: Park Seth-R01164
Cc: dita
Subject: Re: [dita] Standard DITA processing instructions?
My usual
thought is that if we want to standardize it, why make it PIs, which by their
very nature cannot be controlled by a schema?
For example, for
change tracking there's already some attributes that might be used - but if we
wanted something new, we could create a domain specialized from <data>
and make it broadly available.
Michael
Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
From:
"Park
Seth-R01164" <>
To:
"dita"
<>
Date:
10/02/2009
02:04 PM
Subject:
[dita]
Standard DITA processing instructions?
I hope this is
not taboo to suggest, but...
Is it in the TC
purview to provide a way for DITA application developers to undergo some level
of coordination for processing-instructions for common user events?
For instance,
if there were a common nomenclature for "change tracking" PI notation,
an author, editor, reviewer, and publisher could use the most appropriate tool
for his/her specific function and the change tracking feature would work across
those different purpose-specific tools.
Something like
this would allow DITA files to be exchanged where not only the content is
guaranteed to be interoperable, but also commonly used application
"features".
bracing for the
blow,
-seth
