[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Two proposals for nested sections
I just want to clarify one thing. Obviously we won't agree on solutions to problems if we don't agree on the problem statement. ________________________________ From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 7:39 PM To: Paul Prescod Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [dita] Two proposals for nested sections ... > For me it comes down to how much control we put in the hands of > the map author versus the content author. Actually, neither of these people is a concern to me. My question is how much control we put in the hands of the _specializer_. My second proposal was specifically designed to bind the hands of the author and yet free the hands of the specializer. If our goal is to maximize the number of topics, without regard to semantics, content analysis or business rules, then we should just get rid of sections altogether. Any argument you can use against two levels of nesting can be applied against a single level of nesting. If the only compromise to be had is one that complicates DITA with a new base type then I would argue to defer the issue until more TC members have experience with the problem and its current workarounds. I would hope that a concensus one way or the other would arise through the aggregation of use cases. Paul Prescod
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]