>> 2. If so, is the TC also OK with specializing closereqs from example,
>> when it is not an example? Given the close semantic relationship
>> between prelreqs/prereq and closereqs/postreq, are we OK with having
>> no defined relationship?
>I certainly object to specializing from example in this case--it seems to
be a clear misuse of example as a base.
>I would certainly be very surprised when I got the default presentation
effect for <example> in my machine industry tasks.
>Why can't closereqs be a specialization of section?
To be honest, at that point I was not sure regarding the specialization
technique.
When I specialize <prelreqs> and <closereqs> from section and the resulting
content model of a mitaskbody:
"(((%prelreqs;) |
(%context;) |
(%section;))*,
((%steps; |
%steps-unordered; |
%process;))?,
(%result;)?,
(%example;)*,
(%closereqs;)*)"
is a valid specialization, then I completely agree to specialize closereqs
from section.
Cheers,
Chris
