Yes.
@status is a general metadata attribute, but why would we want to limit it to the current set of tokens?
I suspect the tokens were what IBMIDDOC supported … If we changed @status to NMTOKEN, individual implementations could define values for @status in a subject scheme map and bind them to applicable attribute/element pairs.
Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Owner, Eberlein Consulting LLC
Skype: kriseberlein; voice: +1 (919) 622-1501
From: <> On Behalf Of Eliot Kimber Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 9:53 AM
To: DITA Technical Committee () <>
Subject: [dita] Re: Values for @status on <draft-comment> Actually, reviewing the @status attribute in the spec, I think it needs to remain as it is as it’s a general metadata attribute. The @disposition attribute, as Zoe points out, is what we are looking for and it already allows any value. Here’s the definition of @disposition: @disposition: Specifies the status of the draft comment. I’m not sure I’ve ever thought about this attribute before (I haven’t used draft comments that much). But in the context of our Content Fusion reviews where we are using <draft-comment> it looks like @disposition is the place to record the disposition status of the comment. I would amend the current definition of @disposition to be something like: Specifies the disposition of the draft comment in the context of some review process, i.e., “open”, “pending”, “resolved”, etc. Cheers, E. _____________________________________________ Eliot Kimber Sr Staff Content Engineer O: 512 554 9368 M: 512 554 9368 servicenow.com LinkedIn Twitter YouTube Facebook
From: Zoe Lawson <
>
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:45 AM
To: Eliot Kimber < >, kris eberleinconsulting.com < >, DITA Technical Committee ( ) <
>
Subject: Re: Values for @status on <draft-comment> [External Email] How does @disposition interact with @status? Why are there both? (There's probably a really good reason, I'm just ignorant.) I am fine with making @status unrestricted. Zoë Lawson (she/her)
From: <
> on behalf of Eliot Kimber <
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 9:36:27 AM
To: kris eberleinconsulting.com < >; DITA Technical Committee ( ) <
>
Subject: [dita] Re: Values for @status on <draft-comment> I can’t see a reason to not allow unrestricted values. The declaration should be NMTOKEN if the intent is to allow any single keyword value. I can definitely see wanting values like “resolved”, “under-review”, “rejected”, etc.—the usual review workflow states and status values. Cheers, E. _____________________________________________ Eliot Kimber Sr Staff Content Engineer O: 512 554 9368 M: 512 554 9368 servicenow.com LinkedIn Twitter YouTube Facebook
From: <
> on behalf of kris eberleinconsulting.com <
>
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 5:04 AM
To: DITA Technical Committee ( ) <
>
Subject: [dita] Values for @status on <draft-comment> [External Email] The values for @status on <draft-comment> are currently limited to the following: changed deleted new unchanged -dita-use-conref-target This seems unnecessarily limiting. Is there a reason that we should not change to PCDATA? Also, is this limited set of tokens what is permitted for @status on other elements? How many of you all are aware of DITA implementations that have used @status? Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Owner, Eberlein Consulting LLC
Skype: kriseberlein; voice: +1 (919) 622-1501
