Thanks for the cc to me, Andrej. (Someone please offline point me to the
right help file to learn how to engage this thread properly. Is it a
subscription thing?)
> If it's a relic of HTML, I'm not sure why it's a bad relic. The
> adoption of HTML hasn't exactly been crippled by this approach.
I suspect that on careful consideration, Michael, you might want to
rephrase that. I know I don't have to tell you that HTML browsers have a
much simpler rendering task because they're just about format, so the
HTML spec can get away with ignoring semantic criteria. We can't. That's
why a relic of HTML that is not semantically motivated is a bad thing
for XML, and a bad thing for DITA.
Case in point: To say that the text before a list (which may contain
paragraphs, tables, lists, figures, etc.) is in the _same_paragraph_
as the text after that list is perverse and contrary to any ordinary
notion of "paragraph". Conversely, if DITA has its own definition of
"paragraph" allowing that, then why not allow
as a child of
? The
same logic that proscribes that should proscribe anything like it,
including lists.
There is undoubtedly a cost to correcting bad decisions after their
effects have become established. Bear in mind that if not corrected such
considerations may become a barrier to adoption in the future after the
utility of an on-ramp to XML wears off and users want closer semantic
control of their content. We spoke of usability issues in the TC today.
Here is one staring us in the face. Users found it confusing. Very
possibly OT developers found it confusing, whence the disparate
rendering. Making a clean categorization of elements in terms of their
complexity could reduce confusion and simplify OT work. By complexity I
mean something like phrase can only containt #PCDATA, para can only
contain phrase and #PCDATA, "block" = {list, table, ...} can only
contain para and "block", etc.
This is representative of a larger issue. Another example is the
decision to make lists and tables semantically distinct. That is
properly a rendering distinction. Any table can be rendered as a list
whose list items (the row elements) are parallel in structure. Any list
whose items are parallel in structure (such as a list of steps) can be
rendered as a table. Development of adaptable facilities for semantic
tables is one of the unresolved challenges and potential benefits of
XML, and that decision to sunder lists from tables obscures the means.
That's a digression from the current thread, so we ought not to pursue
it here. I just mention it to indicate that this is part of a larger
issue of relics of HTML format markup that may be lurking, which should
have been put in question relative to the SGML standard during the
inception of DITA, but which for whatever reason were not.
/BN
>
Original Message-----
> From: Andrzej Zydron [mailto:azydron@xml-intl.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 4:05 PM
> To: Michael Priestley
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; Bruce Nevin (bnevin)
> Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for Consideration: Default
> Behavior for List Items
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Your example failed to highlight the real problem, which is:
>
> Do something.
> One of three things happens:
>
> that really screw up segmentation, translation and any sane
> form of linguistic processing.
>
>
>
> The problem is that HTML was a VERY BAD IMPLEMENTATION of
> SGML. It concentrated on form rather than structure (mixing
> up both which is, if not a sin against humanity, then
> definitely one against common sense ;) ), which is why we
> needed XML. Basing an XML vocabulary on HTML (which would not
> even parse in SGML terms after about version 2.0) was, at
> best IMHO a dubious choice.
>
> Rather like , , and translatable attributes this
> should all be consigned to the DITA 'deprecated' bin of
> history (BTW the same should be true of CONREF for individual
> nouns or noun phrases), and good riddance to it all. Anybody
> who has had to cope with translating such documents will
> testify to the difficulties involved therein.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> AZ
>
>
>
> Michael Priestley wrote:
> >
> > A few points:
> >
> > - This would be a backwards-incompatible change. That is, it would
> > render invalid a large proportion of the existing DITA content out
> > there. I think we could consider this for 2.0 if the cost of
> > converting all back-level content was justified by the
> benefits (I'm
> > not currently convinced myself, but that would be the
> timeline to make
> > the arguments)
> > - This would also render the current task specialization invalid,
> > since it specializes a