OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

  • 1.  Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes



  • 2.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 00:01
    I've scanned through the content models of the A and B elements in this updated version. There were a significant number of content models that had noticeable changes from the release, and everything looks right enough in the updated version. There is no way I can complete scanning C through Y by Friday. If a scan of all of them is necessary, I will need more help. mag
    Original Message


  • 3.  Re: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 00:38
    I plan to do what inspection I can over the next couple of days. Cheers, E. ---- Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 7/13/16, 7:02 PM, "Tom Magliery" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote: >I've scanned through the content models of the A and B elements in this >updated version. There were a significant number of content models that >had noticeable changes from the release, and everything looks right >enough in the updated version. > >There is no way I can complete scanning C through Y by Friday. If a scan >of all of them is necessary, I will need more help. > >mag > > >
    Original Message


  • 4.  Re: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 01:22
    Tom, I just scanned through U,V,W,X, and Y; things look as they should. I think we probably added <draft-comment> and <required-cleanup> to more places than was optimal --Why would one ever need <draft-comment> within <xmlatt>? -- but it's too late to do anything about that. Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype) On 7/13/2016 8:02 PM, Tom Magliery wrote: I've scanned through the content models of the A and B elements in this updated version. There were a significant number of content models that had noticeable changes from the release, and everything looks right enough in the updated version. There is no way I can complete scanning C through Y by Friday. If a scan of all of them is necessary, I will need more help. mag
    Original Message


  • 5.  Re: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 01:30
    I might want to comment on the value of the attribute and be sure that the comment is associated with the attribute name and not something in the surrounding context. For example, this query would only provide appropriate results if the draft comments are inside the elements they apply to: For $e in $doc//*[draft-comment] return <comment value="{string($e/draft-comment)}" element="{f:pathToElem($e)}" /> This produces a reports of draft comments and pointers to the elements they apply to. If the draft comment was not inside the <xmlatt> element there would be no way to know that the comment actually applied to the <xmlatt> element and not something else (for example, a UI that navigates from this report result to the elements pointed to). Cheers, E. ---- Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 7/13/16, 8:20 PM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote: >Tom, I just scanned through U,V,W,X, and Y; things look as they should. > >I think we probably added <draft-comment> and <required-cleanup> to more >places than was optimal --Why would one ever need <draft-comment> within ><xmlatt>? -- but it's too late to do anything about that. > >Best, >Kris > >Kristen James Eberlein >Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee >Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting >www.eberleinconsulting.com >+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype) > >On 7/13/2016 8:02 PM, Tom Magliery wrote: >> I've scanned through the content models of the A and B elements in this >>updated version. There were a significant number of content models that >>had noticeable changes from the release, and everything looks right >>enough in the updated version. >> >> There is no way I can complete scanning C through Y by Friday. If a >>scan of all of them is necessary, I will need more help. >> >> mag >> >> >>
    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 15:16
    All, Are you checking everything for all elements? I know that originally, we were splitting this up by all-inclusive, tech comm, and base. Would it make more sense to just look at everything for all elements for a specific letter group? - Deb
    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 16:03
    Maria and I will start in middle. We finished I, K, and L. Maria will commit to reviewing F, G, and H. I'll commit to reviewing M, N, O. I'm also on deadline and will probably do most of my reviewing tomorrow. BTW, the alphabetical list is GREAT. - Deb
    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 21:13
    I've finished C and D and am looking E now. At present this leaves only P through T unclaimed/unfinished/unmentioned. I will be able to do at least some of those. mag
    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 21:38
    I've finished M, N, and O. I'll commit to P, Q, and R. - Deb
    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 21:59
    I've finished P and Q. I'm working on R now and have a question on <relcolspec>. For the Learning group map, Learning Object map, the updated list is significantly shorter than the release list. Will somebody else verify that the updated list is correct for <relcolspec>? - Deb
    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-15-2016 14:41
      |   view attached
    The updated model is correct. This is related to the learning constraint that was discussed on the TC call over the last couple of weeks - for those two maps, topicref and extensions are severely limited. This limitation was lost when generating the DTD and XSD (that's the issue we had at the TC), and the limitation was also lost when generating the containment tables. For what it's worth, the fact that Deb and Tom are noticing and asking about these items (including the ones that resulted in changes, like the ??+ syntax) really gives me a good feeling about this review.
    Regards, Robert D. Anderson DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification , Digital Services Group

    E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com Digital Services Group
    11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA
    Debra Bissantz ---07/14/2016 04:59:13 PM---I've finished P and Q. I'm working on R now and have a question on <relcolspec>. For the Learning gr From: Debra Bissantz <dbissantz@healthwise.org> To: Tom Magliery <tom.magliery@justsystems.com>, Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>, Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>, Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS Date: 07/14/2016 04:59 PM Subject: RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> I've finished P and Q. I'm working on R now and have a question on <relcolspec>. For the Learning group map, Learning Object map, the updated list is significantly shorter than the release list. Will somebody else verify that the updated list is correct for <relcolspec>? - Deb
    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes

    Posted 07-14-2016 16:07
      |   view attached
    I've completed the review of the base version, and didn't find any issues. [Ah, the perks of claiming the base edition.] Tom found a fairly minor issue in his review that should be addressed - I'm searching to see if that same error shows up elsewhere. Specifically, with some odd models like the <completed> model in bookmap, the spec ended up with two question marks together; searching on similar constructions, I've found another spot that ends with a question mark followed by an asterisk. (That one accurately reflects the grammar file, but looks confusing, so I'll clean it up.)
    Regards, Robert D. Anderson DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification , Digital Services Group

    E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com Digital Services Group
    11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA
    Debra Bissantz ---07/14/2016 10:16:17 AM---All, Are you checking everything for all elements? I know that originally, we were splitting this up From: Debra Bissantz <dbissantz@healthwise.org> To: Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>, Tom Magliery <tom.magliery@justsystems.com>, Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com> Date: 07/14/2016 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> All, Are you checking everything for all elements? I know that originally, we were splitting this up by all-inclusive, tech comm, and base. Would it make more sense to just look at everything for all elements for a specific letter group? - Deb
    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: [dita] Web portals for reviewing Robert's content model changes