Agreed. I have been exercising a lot of term, abbreviated-form and glossentry content lately and can testify to the difficulties. I would like to see this improved in DITA 2.0.
Thanks and best regards,
--Scott
Scott Hudson
Content Strategist
Digital Aviation Learning & Development
Voting member:
OASIS DocBook TC, Publishers SC
OASIS DITA TC, Tech Comm SC, LW DITA SC, Learning Content SC
OASIS Augmented Reality in Information Products (ARIP) TC
Jeppesen |
Digital Aviation | Boeing
55 Inverness Drive East | Englewood,
CO 80112 | www.jeppesen.com
This document contains only administrative, uncontrolled data under U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
From: <> on behalf of Eliot Kimber <>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [dita] History of the glossref Design?
Thanks—that at least provides the original proposal language. Unfortunately the proposal doesn’t actually justify why print=”no” is a useful default for references to glossary topics. It
is this default that makes glossref particularly pointless. Requiring @keys makes sense and toc=”no” kind of makes sense, but print=”no” does not make any sense at all as far as I can tell. It also doesn’t explain why linking=”none” is a useful default.
This is clearly something that needs to be addressed in DITA 2.0, probably along with a general reassessment of the glossary topic design.
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
From:
Robert D Anderson <>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:40 AM
To: Eliot Kimber <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [dita] History of the glossref Design?
I remember a lot of the discussion around DITA 1.2 extensions to the glossentry topic - they were long and difficult, with significant expansion of the original (very basic) glossentry topic in DITA 1.1. These extensions were
bundled together with the new abbreviation / acronym support in DITA 1.2.
I remember less of the discussion around <glossref>, except that it was part of the same proposal, located here:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/26990/IssueGlossary12026.html
From that proposal - the glossref element was specifically created as a domain element to allow a key to be used for a glossary topic, for use with acronyms.
Like a handful of other proposals, this set of DITA 1.2 features was approved based heavily on the work of one person, who was no longer on the TC when it was time to write up actual specification language / work out the edge cases. That handful of proposals
is what led directly to the far more rigorous process we put in place for DITA 1.3 proposals.
Regards,
Robert D. Anderson
DITA-OT
lead and Co-editor DITA
1.3 specification,
Digital Services Group
E-mail:
Digital
Services Group
11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA
Eliot Kimber ---12/01/2016 09:16:39 AM---I’ve recently
come to appreciate just how crazy (and useless) the design of the glossref element is.
From: Eliot Kimber <>
To: "" <>
Date: 12/01/2016 09:16 AM
Subject: [dita] History of the glossref Design?
Sent by: <>
I’ve recently come to appreciate just how crazy (and useless) the design of the glossref element is. I can’t remember the history of the design and I’m curious what the original justification for that design was. Where would
that history be?
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
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
