Hi Robert,
My understanding is, that in ANSI Z535 and ISO 3864, the only hazard labels are caution, danger, notice, and warning. It seems like these four values should be the only ones included in the hazardstatement type attribute enumeration. But, I suppose that's academic at this point.
If there was a specific desire to have the hazardstatement type enumeration match the note type enumeration, then we ought to add "trouble" to the hazardstatement type enumeration even though it's semantically dubious. It pains me to say this because if I were to document the usage for hazardstatement/@type="trouble", I would say do not use it.
Best Regards,
Bob Thomas
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Robert D Anderson <> wrote:
In one of our DITA 1.3 proposals we added a note type of "trouble" to go along with the usual caution, attention, and similar note types.
We have one specialization of <note> in the core OASIS types, from the hazard statement domain, called <hazardstatement>.
Should the new "trouble" type be added to the hazard statement element as well? For all other values of note/@type, the two elements are in sync. My assumption is that it should be added (overlooked in the proposal), but the TC needs to verify this before I update the topic.
Thanks,
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
--
Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat () or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)
