That's exactly the wording change I suggested in my comments in DITAWeb. Cheers, E. ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC
http://contrext.com On 3/10/14, 12:18 PM, "Thomas Cihak" <
tom.cihak@freescale.com> wrote: >The wording ‘at the topic level’ was in no way intended to limit the use >of the domain to topics; it was merely to emphasize that the release >notes were to > be recorded in the same file where the changes were made (rather than in >a spreadsheet or separate topic or file). > >If we change the wording to this: > >“…enables content workers to log comments and metadata at the topic or >map level….” > >Is this sufficient? > > > >btw, here’s the text of one of Eliot’s emails to me when he helped me >with the domain integration: > > >The domain as I specified it can be used with both maps and topics >because change-historylist is specialized from <metadata>, which is >allowed only in <prolog> > and <topicmeta>. > >Cheers, >E. > > > >Thank you. > >with best regards > >Tom Cihak >Digital Networking Information Development >Freescale > >512.895.3063 > > >From:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org ] >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" ><
Scott.Hudson@schneider-electric.com> wrote: > > >Sounds reasonable to me. > >--Scott >Sent from my iPhone > > > >On Mar 8, 2014, at 2:55 PM, "Eliot Kimber" <
ekimber@contrext.com> 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. >______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > >