RE: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

Title: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

Hi Folks.

 

Yes, including the change domain in a map was absolutely intended. Here is an excerpt from the original draft in the wiki:

 

“This section details the proposed markup modifications. 1) create a new "changehistory" domain that
 can be integrated by map and topic shells 2) re-factor bookmap.mod to specify some elements in a separate domain (so this can be used by bookmap). 3) specify required
 and optional processing expectations”

 

Good catch, Eliot.

 

Also note that we predicted changes required to bookmap. I don’t recall whether the SC included this work in the proposal or determined that it was unnecessary.
 I can do some research if needed.

 

 

-seth

 

From:  [mailto:]
On Behalf Of JoAnn Hackos

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:16 AM

To: Hudson, Scott

Cc: Eliot Kimber; dita

Subject: Re: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

 

We need to hear from Tom Cihak.

Sent from my iPad 

JoAnn Hackos

Comtech Services Inc

710 Kipling Street Suite 400

Lakewood CO 80215

 

 

CIDM will be hosting the Content Management Strategies/DITA North America conference in April 2013. 

On Mar 8, 2014, at 9:14 PM, "Hudson, Scott" <> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me.

--Scott 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 8, 2014, at 2:55 PM, "Eliot Kimber" <> wrote:

Proposal 13102 as written says:

"enables content workers to log comments and metadata at the topic level

when changes are made."

The implicit restriction to topics is not necessary: there's no reason not

to allow revision history within maps and no technical reason to not use

it within maps (that is, <metadata>, the specialization base of

<change-historylist>, is allowed within <topicmeta>, so the domain is

inherently allowable within maps).

I take this to be a simple oversight on the part of the original proposers

who were focused on topic-specific use cases. I can't see any reason not

to allow the domain within maps and can think of times when I would want

to use it in maps.

Does the TC object to adjusting the spec language to explicitly allow use

of the domain within maps (which also implies integrating the domain in

all non-base map types in addition to the non-base topic types already

indicated in the proposal).

Cheers,

Eliot

—————

Eliot Kimber, Owner

Contrext, LLC

http://contrext.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

______________________________________________________________________