← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: Spec question
I agree that the hazard statement domain does not make sense in
subjectScheme maps. Nonetheless, that domain was included in the
subjectScheme shells that OASIS shipped for 1.2. Trust both the spec
and the DTDs.
Personally, I always remove the hazard statement and mapgroup
domains from subjectScheme document-type shells when I create them
for clients. And often the utilities and highlighting domain as
well.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 5/28/2015 9:01 AM, Julio Vazquez
wrote:
Hi Kris,
We’re having an internal discussion about
Vasont configuration and are looking at SubjectScheme maps. I
think there’s some confusion about the containment statements
in the spec and I’d like to get some clarity to help my case.
For example, the contains by statement for hazardstatement (http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/langref/hazardstatement.html#hazardstatement)
would have you believe that a hazardstatement can appear
directly in the SubjectScheme map.
From a logical viewpoint, this makes no
sense because a hazardstatement is a topic construct, not a
map construct. Of course, following the domain inclusions in
the DTD, it should be allowable within the map.
So the question becomes should I trust the
spec or the mod file for the actual configuration of Vasont?
Julio
J. Vazquez
Senior Content
Analyst
Vasont
Systems
A
TransPerfect
Company
Skype:
tpt_jvazquez
+1
717-793-3895
www.vasont.com
The
information in this email is confidential and intended for
those to whom it is addressed.
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →