OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

This looks like an oversight...

The content model for figgroup is just
enough to allow for the one specialization of it that DITA ships with:
syntax diagrams.

<!ELEMENT figgroup    
 ((%title;)?,
           
             (%figgroup; | %xref; |
%fn; | %ph; |
           
              %keyword;)* )    
                     
   >

Conspicuously missing from that list
are state, term, data and foreign (perhaps also boolean, indexterm and
foreign).  Granted, these could be wrapped in a ph, but the extra
level of wrapping isn't always sensible in the context of a specialization.

I'd like to see at least the four basic
elements state, term, data and foreign included into figgroup's content
model, befitting its role as a base for specializations.

--

Deborah Pickett

Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com

OK if we defer to 1.2? I'm wary of touching
the DTDs/Schemas at this stage for 1.1. 

Michael Priestley

IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead

mpriestl@ca.ibm.com

http://dita.xml.org/blog/25





Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com

01/18/2007 09:36 PM




To
dita@lists.oasis-open.org


cc



Subject
[dita] figgroup: whither <data>?








This looks like an oversight...



The content model for figgroup is just enough to allow for the one specialization
of it that DITA ships with: syntax diagrams.



<!ELEMENT figgroup      ((%title;)?,


                    
    (%figgroup; | %xref; | %fn; | %ph; |


                    
     %keyword;)* )            
                 >



Conspicuously missing from that list are state, term, data and foreign
(perhaps also boolean, indexterm and foreign).  Granted, these could
be wrapped in a ph, but the extra level of wrapping isn't always sensible
in the context of a specialization.



I'd like to see at least the four basic elements state, term, data and
foreign included into figgroup's content model, befitting its role as a
base for specializations.



--

Deborah Pickett

Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com

But of course.  I don't want to
get in the way of pushing 1.1 out the door.  Besides, I may have forgotten
one or more elements in my list.

--

Deborah Pickett

Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com





Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>

2007-01-24 03.16




To
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com


cc
dita@lists.oasis-open.org


Subject
Re: [dita] figgroup: whither <data>?








OK if we defer to 1.2? I'm wary of touching the DTDs/Schemas at this stage
for 1.1. 



Michael Priestley

IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead

mpriestl@ca.ibm.com

http://dita.xml.org/blog/25





Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com

01/18/2007 09:36 PM






To
dita@lists.oasis-open.org



cc



Subject
[dita] figgroup: whither <data>?











This looks like an oversight... 


The content model for figgroup is just enough to allow for the one specialization
of it that DITA ships with: syntax diagrams. 


<!ELEMENT figgroup      ((%title;)?,


                    
   (%figgroup; | %xref; | %fn; | %ph; | 

                    
    %keyword;)* )              
               >



Conspicuously missing from that list are state, term, data and foreign
(perhaps also boolean, indexterm and foreign).  Granted, these could
be wrapped in a ph, but the extra level of wrapping isn't always sensible
in the context of a specialization. 


I'd like to see at least the four basic elements state, term, data and
foreign included into figgroup's content model, befitting its role as a
base for specializations. 


--

Deborah Pickett

Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com