OASIS DocBook TC2

"Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> writes: > etc.). So it seems just adding <expansion> to the existing mix would > have to be done, with the explanation that its location in the content > is arbitrary and it may or may not be output, which seems a bit > awkward. What do you think? I think we may have to put the wrapper in the other way: <expansion> <acronym>NASA</acronym> <alt>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</alt> </expansion> But that seems awfully heavy. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> The shoe that fits one person http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ pinches another; there is no Chair, DocBook Technical Committee recipe for living that suits all cases.-- Jung PGP signature

I agree this is a bit heavy, but at least the markup is clear and the content is easily translatable, even by machine translation. I vote for this. I'm assuming there is no need for full-featured acronym and term expansion that the glossary entry markup introduced in DITA 1.2 supports. Gershon On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Norman Walsh wrote: > "Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> writes: >> etc.). So it seems just adding <expansion> to the existing mix would >> have to be done, with the explanation that its location in the content >> is arbitrary and it may or may not be output, which seems a bit >> awkward. What do you think? > > I think we may have to put the wrapper in the other way: > > <expansion> > <acronym>NASA</acronym> > <alt>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</alt> > </expansion> > > But that seems awfully heavy. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> The shoe that fits one person > http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ pinches another; there is no > Chair, DocBook Technical Committee recipe for living that suits all > cases.-- Jung

On 16.6.2011 22:19, Norman Walsh wrote: > I think we may have to put the wrapper in the other way: > > <expansion> > <acronym>NASA</acronym> > <alt>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</alt> > </expansion> > > But that seems awfully heavy. I still don't understand why we can't use <acronym>NASA<alt>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</alt></acronym> Which is currently allowed by schema and such usage of alt was endorsed few years ago exactly for accessibility pursposes. IIRC stylesheet already support this markup and generate appropriate title attribute in HTML output. Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member ------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenPGP digital signature

On 20 June 2011 08:30, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > On 16.6.2011 22:19, Norman Walsh wrote: > >> I think we may have to put the wrapper in the other way: >> >> <expansion> >>   <acronym>NASA</acronym> >>   <alt>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</alt> >> </expansion> >> >> But that seems awfully heavy. > > I still don't understand why we can't use > > <acronym>NASA<alt>National Aeronautics and Space > Administration</alt></acronym> > > Which is currently allowed by schema and such usage of alt was endorsed > few years ago exactly for accessibility pursposes. IIRC stylesheet > already support this markup and generate appropriate title attribute in > HTML output. An earlier comment was that we'd *have to* allow a bunch of inlines if we put markup within acronym? I accepted it then, but in hindsight, it is plain wrong. I disagree with alt as internal markup on semantic grounds http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/alt.html <acronym>NASA<expansion>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</expansion></acronym> is good for me. I.e. something semantically correct? HTH -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk

On 20.6.2011 11:21, Dave Pawson wrote: > I disagree with alt as internal markup on semantic grounds > http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/alt.html I suggest to read DocBook V5 definition of alt which was changed since V4.x: http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/alt.html Does V5 alt works for you? Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member ------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenPGP digital signature

On 20 June 2011 17:00, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > On 20.6.2011 11:21, Dave Pawson wrote: > >> I disagree with alt as internal markup on semantic grounds >> http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/alt.html > > I suggest to read DocBook V5 definition of alt which was changed since V4.x: > > http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/alt.html > > Does V5 alt works for you? Description A text (or other nonvisual) description of a graphical element. This is intended to be an alternative to the graphical presentation. No, with that definition? Almost contradicts (or expands on) alt €” A text-only annotation, often used for accessibility If the description were made more general (perhaps with an accessibility slant) then yes. Would this cause confusion with 4.x users if changed to a more general use from a graphics only? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk

On 20.6.2011 19:13, Dave Pawson wrote: > On 20 June 2011 17:00, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: >> On 20.6.2011 11:21, Dave Pawson wrote: >> >>> I disagree with alt as internal markup on semantic grounds >>> http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/alt.html >> >> I suggest to read DocBook V5 definition of alt which was changed since V4.x: >> >> http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/alt.html >> >> Does V5 alt works for you? > > Description > > A text (or other nonvisual) description of a graphical element. This > is intended to be an alternative to the graphical presentation. > > No, with that definition? > Almost contradicts (or expands on) > alt €” A text-only annotation, often used for accessibility Well, then description is outdated, it was not simply updated. > If the description were made more general (perhaps with an accessibility > slant) then yes. > > Would this cause confusion with 4.x users if changed to a more general > use from a graphics only? My experience is that alt usage in 4.x was very rare, so I don't expect large confusion. Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member ------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenPGP digital signature

On 20 June 2011 21:51, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: >>> Does V5 alt works for you? >> >> Description >> >> A text (or other nonvisual) description of a graphical element. This >> is intended to be an alternative to the graphical presentation. >> >> No, with that definition? >> Almost contradicts (or expands on) >> alt €” A text-only annotation, often used for accessibility > > Well, then description is outdated, it was not simply updated. Suggest Description: A text description of another element intended to aid accessibility. I'm not sure if it is always 'the enclosing' element (as in a graphical element). A simple example would clarify. Yes, I'm happy with that Jirka. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk