Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Footnote desired in LW DITA?
Because Jan did say 'footnote', I want to pry once more on
assumptions: that we are talking about the equivalent of regular
DITA's <fn> element (generally relocated from its source
context when rendered) and not the HTML5 <footnote> element,
which is a location placeholder in HTML5 (whose content is rendered
in place).
For Lightweight DITA, the latter <footnote> could be
specialized as needed from section, specifically the final section
in a body. I think Noz and I are both agreeing strongly that the
<fn> version has a place in the core content definition. But
we can discuss that at a review pass once we have the architectural
features firmed up (like specialization, where things still need
proven).
--
Don
On 4/3/2016 1:44 PM, Noz Urbina wrote:
I'd say so. I haven't seen a profile recently
but they're typical web teams currently in your usual CMS tools
(Word > Sitecore, or whatever else WCMS) looking to do more
structured, reusable content in multiple formats, so assuming
we've not totally done a left turn on the profile then for sure!
On 3 April 2016 at 15:14, Michael
Priestley <>
wrote:
Just to confirm: otherwise they fit the profile for
Lightweight?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 3, 2016, at 3:26 AM, Noz Urbina <>
wrote:
I've got a client in banking right
now and footnote is absolutely vital because you
can't market without legal notes. Similar
applies in Pharma. Citations which are really
treated as footnotes. I'm not sure how that
plays in here. That applies to Banking, Pharma,
and I've got some clients in financial services
software that use a lot of quotes from magazines
in this way.
On 1 April 2016 at
22:30, Michael Priestley <>
wrote:
Hi Jan,
I agree
with Don that this is the right
way to communicate it - what the list is
for.
I also
fully expected that as the different
focus areas developed out specializations
to test the architecture we'd
find gaps - so this is normal and
expected, and why we're waiting for each
group's specialization work to complete
before finalizing a spec for topic
and map.
All that
said, the one question I've
got about footnote is whether it's a
useful requirement going forward,
or only for legacy materials. The
marketing folks I had talked with about
footnote at IBM (and we had some examples)
thought that it would be better
not to have the footnote going forward.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff
Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
From:
Don
Day <>
To:
Date:
04/01/2016
03:28 PM
Subject:
Re:
[dita-lightweight-dita]
Footnote desired in LW DITA?
Sent by:
<>
Jan, this list IS a
sounding board for ideas. Our discussion
format is less rigorous than an RFE or
RFC item, and Michael tends to use
a consensus approach to closure on
things. With that, let the debate begin.
And after thinking at length about how
HTML5's <footnote> element
might inform on content model, I
realized finally that your question may
have been about current DITA's
<fn> element, which is not yet in
lightweight DITA. This element IS an
archetype-level element that finds
many uses in specializations. As we look
to adding things back in later
on in the LwD process, I agree that this
element deserves consideration.
When I think of a topic architecture, I
look for structures that underpin
many common instances. Is a particular
item an instance, or an archetype
or architectural feature? The archetypes
and architectural features go
into the core, the instances go into the
specializations.
<fn> and <indexterm> (a bird
of a feather) are archetypes that
uniquely contain relocatable content.
Generally we place these elements
inline for context but render their
content elsewhere (contrasted with
referenceable content, content
from elsewhere that gets rendered
at the point of reference). I think they
are essential in a full implementation.
Granted, it is hard to train writers to
think of content as objects rather
than instances, but this is a case where
indirection provides great capability
for the types of queries and renditions
that will drive future content
delivery.
So if this is the case of "footnote"
that you requested, then
I am fully with you. I suspect that
Michael will refocus on the adequateness
of inner content models once we finish
the overall structure.
--
Don
R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee
LinkedIn: donrday Twitter:
@donrday
About.me: Don
R. Day Skype: don.r.day
"Where is the wisdom
we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in
information?"
--T.S. Eliot
On 3/30/2016 5:01 AM, Jan
Benedictus wrote:
HI all.
While migrating sample content to Lw
DITA to test the new Marketing
specialization,
we ran into the limitation that
there is no footnote in the schema.
I understand
that 'scope-creep' is always a risk,
but still it feels that a footnote
is a pretty versatile requirement?
It wouldn t feel logical to put this
in a specialization?
I am not sure if this is the right
way to express such findings, so my
second question is more
procedure-related: what is the
correct way to communicate
such RFC's?
Cheers!
Jan
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
--
Noz
Content Strategist, www.urbinaconsulting.com
Co-Author of "Content
Strategy: Connecting the
dots between business, brand
and benefits", www.thecontentstrategybook.com
--
Noz
Content Strategist, www.urbinaconsulting.com
Co-Author of "Content Strategy: Connecting
the dots between business, brand and
benefits", www.thecontentstrategybook.com
--
Don R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee
LinkedIn: donrday Twitter:
@donrday
About.me: Don R. Day Skype:
don.r.day
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
Virus-free. www.avast.com