[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
You are right.
In a DoD contractor environment, those are usually
called out the logistics analyst who communicates
and documents the requirements in the LSAR records.
How the author uses those records is detemined by
the capabilities of the system. It can be the
case that the LSAR record is converted into the
appropriate markup.
To be clear, in an IETM, the
Warning, Caution or Note is typically implemented
as a modal dialog. In a paper manual, it is a
paragraph/whatever with a very specific format
applied. Paired technicians may work to satisfy
the acknowledgement requirement.
Because these requirements are detailed
and explicit by contract deliverable, the ability
to test and verify that they are in accordance
with the contract requirement (say CDRL, for
example) that calls out the specific construct
(may quote the DTD or schema verbatim), is helped
by the correct-by-construction technique made
possible when using context-sensitive editing.
In some systems, that is achieved by compiling
the DTD/Schema into the editing GUI, and others,
by requiring validation checks at some given
interval.
len
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
At 10:11 AM -0500 4/12/04, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>A DTD can be written to do exactly that by requiring an
>acknowledgement of the warning. This is IETM markup
>and that can be done.
I suppose I can see how it could require an acknowledgement of the
warning. However, I still maintain that it is incapable of
determining:
1. That a warning is called for.
2. That a warning has been mislabelled as a caution by the writer.
|
