Fwd: Re: [dita] Proposal for properties table

Meant to send to list ...

    

    
Best,

      Kris

      

      Kristen James Eberlein

      Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

      Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting

      www.eberleinconsulting.com

      +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)

      

    

    

      

      -------- Forwarded Message --------
      
        
          

            Subject:
            
            Re: [dita] Proposal for properties table
          

          

            Date: 
            Tue, 23 Apr 2019 08:09:22 -0400
          

          

            From: 
            Kristen James Eberlein
              <>
          

          

            To: 
            Robert D Anderson <>
          

        
      
      

      

      
      
Thanks, Robert.

      
I am curious; do we have any knowledge of how commonly
        properties tables are used? I confess to encouraging users to
        just use simple tables, for ease of reuse in other topic types.

      
Best,

        Kris

        

        Kristen James Eberlein

        Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

        Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting

        www.eberleinconsulting.com

        +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)

        

      

      
On 4/22/2019 4:54 PM, Robert D
        Anderson wrote:

      

      
        
        
I took this one on a while ago because it
            seemed pretty simple and a nice usability thing to add to
            DITA 2.0:

          https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/issues/123

          

          Of course nothing is as easy as planned, so I'm
            looking for input from the broader TC before I write it up.

          

          The problem today: the properties element is
            available today, but only as a child of the reference body
            (refbody) element. Ideally, it should be usable other places
            in the reference topic, such as in the reference syntax
            section (refsyn element) or in section itself.

          

          Looking for input on the cost/benefit of two
            options:

        
          
Option 1: just add it to the <refsyn>
              model. In sections meant to describe reference syntax, you
              can use the properties table. This is really a trivial
              update, but it still means if you try to add properties
              tables into a normal section it won't work. The only real
              upside is, absolutely no issues with migration / backwards
              compatibility.

          

          
Option 2: pull the definition of the
              property table element out of the Reference module and
              make it a domain, then add it back into the reference
              topic model. This really makes it a domain, and lets you
              use it anywhere in a reference topic. The down side is, it
              requires a migration of any configured shell for reference
              topics. Property tables will be invalid in reference
              topics that do not use the default OASIS shell, until the
              configuration is updated to add the domain. It's a pretty
              straightforward update, but not easily automated because
              configured shells can follow a lot of different patterns.
            
              
Option 2a: We could make a standalone
                  domain for the property tables (nine elements total,
                  the table container and 8 child elements). This would
                  basically be a reference domain, only used in
                  reference topics.

              
Option 2b: We could keep defining
                  property tables inside the reference module, remove it
                  from the reference body model, and declare it in the
                  shell as if it were a domain. This would probably be
                  easier to maintain but would be a quirky way of making
                  a "domain" element.

            
          

        
        

        Thoughts? I really only took this on because
          "hey, easy thing I can push forward", and I don't have a
          strong preference for one option over another.

        

        
        
          
            

              Robert D. Anderson

                  DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3
                  specification

                  Marketing Services Center
            

          
        
        
          
            

              
                
            

            

              E-mail: 

                  

                  11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA