[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting
I think there's a very good argument for the tip attribute. I'm not sure about the others, however.
Jane
--
Jane Credland
Lead Writer, Data Center Group Technical Documentation
Cisco Technical Communication
Office Phone: 408-424-6468
From: Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:55 PM To: JoAnn Hackos <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> Cc: Bob Thomas <bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com>, dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [dita] Clarification about note/@type update for troubleshooting In DITA 1.2 all note types were defined for the hazard statement, along with the othertype attribute. Does this mean that all values other than the 4 JoAnn listed should be documented as "do not use"? I agree completely. An "official" hazard statement that meets EU rules will be only danger, warning, caution, and notice. Nothing else is permitted. JoAnn JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD President Comtech Services Inc. 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80215 Joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com 303-232-7586 CIDM will be hosting the Content Management Strategies/DITA NA Conference 2014 in Seattle, Washington April 28-30. More information at: http://www.cm-strategies.com/2014/index.htm
Hi Bob, Hi Robert, My understanding is, that in ANSI Z535 and ISO 3864, the only hazard labels are caution, danger, notice, and warning. It seems like these four values should be the only ones included in the hazardstatement type attribute enumeration. But, I suppose that's academic at this point. If there was a specific desire to have the hazardstatement type enumeration match the note type enumeration, then we ought to add "trouble" to the hazardstatement type enumeration even though it's semantically dubious. It pains me to say this because if I were to document the usage for hazardstatement/@type="trouble", I would say do not use it. Best Regards, Bob Thomas On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote:
We have one specialization of <note> in the core OASIS types, from the hazard statement domain, called <hazardstatement>. Should the new "trouble" type be added to the hazard statement element as well? For all other values of note/@type, the two elements are in sync. My assumption is that it should be added (overlooked in the proposal), but the TC needs to verify this before I update the topic. Thanks, Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/) -- Bob Thomas +1 720 201 8260 Skype: bob.thomas.colorado Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7) [attachment "graycol.gif" deleted by Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM] |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]