Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting

Jane et al.

I think there's a difference between how we handle <note> type in general and how we handle <hazardstatement> which is part of the machine industry information domain. <hazardstatement> has serious structure requirements and writing restrictions that should
 be followed from the EU directive. <note> does not. I don't think any should ever use <hazardstatement> for a tip.

JoAnn

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD

President

Comtech Services Inc.

710 Kipling Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80215



303-232-7586

 

CIDM will be hosting the Content Management Strategies/DITA NA Conference 2014 in Seattle, Washington April 28-30. More information at:

http://www.cm-strategies.com/2014/index.htm

From: "Jane Credland (jcredlan)" <>

Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:57 PM

To: Robert Anderson <>, JoAnn Hackos <>

Cc: Bob Thomas <>, dita <>

Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting

I think there's a very good argument for the tip attribute. I'm not sure about the others, however.

Jane

-- 

Jane Credland

Lead Writer, Data Center Group Technical Documentation

Cisco Technical Communication

Office Phone: 408-424-6468

From: Robert D Anderson <>

Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:55 PM

To: JoAnn Hackos <>

Cc: Bob Thomas <>, dita <>

Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting

In DITA 1.2 all note types were defined for the hazard statement, along with the othertype attribute. Does this mean that all values other than the 4 JoAnn listed should be documented as "do not use"?

For reference, the DITA 1.2 definition:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/langref/hazardstatement.html#hazardstatement__attributes

Robert D Anderson

IBM Authoring Tools Development

Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)

JoAnn
 Hackos ---12/18/2013 16:52:24---I agree completely. An "official" hazard statement that meets EU rules will be only danger, warning,

From: JoAnn Hackos <>

To: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, Bob Thomas <>,

Cc: dita <>

Date: 12/18/2013 16:52

Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting

I agree completely. An "official" hazard statement that meets EU rules will be only danger, warning, caution, and notice. Nothing else is permitted.

JoAnn

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD

President

Comtech Services Inc.

710 Kipling Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80215



303-232-7586

 

CIDM will be hosting the Content Management Strategies/DITA NA Conference 2014 in Seattle, Washington April 28-30. More information at:

http://www.cm-strategies.com/2014/index.htm

From: Robert Anderson <>

Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:49 PM

To: Bob Thomas <>

Cc: dita <>

Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting

Hi Bob,

I think that makes sense as a reason not to include it, though it is likely to raise the question "Why did you add attention and tip but not trouble". However, the fact that it has several confusing values now is not a very good argument for adding one more
 confusing value.

Robert D Anderson

IBM Authoring Tools Development

Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)

Bob
 Thomas ---12/18/2013 16:18:02---Hi Robert, My understanding is, that in ANSI Z535 and ISO 3864, the only hazard labels

From: Bob Thomas <>

To: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS,

Cc: dita <>

Date: 12/18/2013 16:18

Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting

Sent by: <>

Hi Robert,

My understanding is, that in ANSI Z535 and ISO 3864, the only hazard labels are caution, danger, notice, and warning. It seems like these four values should be the only ones included in the hazardstatement type attribute enumeration. But, I suppose that's academic
 at this point.

If there was a specific desire to have the hazardstatement type enumeration match the note type enumeration, then we ought to add "trouble" to the hazardstatement type enumeration even though it's semantically dubious. It pains me to say this because if I were
 to document the usage for hazardstatement/@type="trouble", I would say do not use it.

Best Regards,

Bob Thomas

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Robert D Anderson <> wrote: 

In one of our DITA 1.3 proposals we added a note type of "trouble" to go along with the usual caution, attention, and similar note types.

We have one specialization of <note> in the core OASIS types, from the hazard statement domain, called <hazardstatement>.

Should the new "trouble" type be added to the hazard statement element as well? For all other values of note/@type, the two elements are in sync. My assumption is that it should be added (overlooked in the proposal), but the TC needs to verify this before I
 update the topic.

Thanks,

Robert D Anderson

IBM Authoring Tools Development

Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)

-- 

Bob Thomas

+1 720 201 8260

Skype: bob.thomas.colorado

Instant messaging: Gmail chat () or Skype

Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)

[attachment "graycol.gif" deleted by Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM]