[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Action: Comment C029: Compatibility of Domains with Map.mod
I've done an analysis of all the topic domains (that is domains that are not expressly map domains). None of the domains specialize elements found in topic.mod nor in map.mod (naturally, since these are topic domains and therefore could never specialize map/topicref). I made a little spreadsheet if anyone wants to see my work.) This means they must only specialize elements defined in commonElements.mod, which means that they must be compatible with map.mod, which means that it should be completely valid and safe to integrate any of the standard-defined topic domains with map.mod. Assuming my analysis is correct, I think that leaves the following question for the TC: Should we update the map.dtd in technicalContent to include the following domains? - abbreviate - highlight - programming - software - ui I don't think hazard statement is applicable in maps as there is no context within which a hazard statement (that is, a note) can usefully occur within a map. That is, while one could build a structure that would allow a note to occur within navtitle or linktext, that's definitely not an intended thing to do in general (I think we can agree that notes are not appropriate content for titles and link text). This change would make the TC-provided technical content map document type consistent with the technical content topic document type. I can't think of any reason not to make this change unless there's some tool out there that would be seriously inconvenienced by the possibility of more elements within <navtitle> or <linktext>, which there shouldn't be since any DITA user could do this themselves if they so desired. Another alternative would be to move the current map.dtd into the base directory and create a more complete map.dtd under the technical content directory. That is, there's no reason we can't provide multiple document type shells now that we have a clear functional organization of the vocabulary modules. [In fact I think it would be convenient to provide a topic.dtd that includes no domains or only the domains within the base directory, but I'm not going to suggest it for 1.2.] I will respond to Jeremy to the effect that we are considering the suggestion. Cheers, Eliot -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 512.554.9368 www.reallysi.com www.rsuitecms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]