dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: Question about learning element
- From: john_hunt@us.ibm.com
- To: robander@us.ibm.com
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:47:40 -0500
Hi,
Thanks, Robert, for the close look at
these value lists.
These lom metadata values were derived
as a subset from the IEEE LOM. That defines the value set for InteractivityType
as ( active | expositive | mixed), with no value for undefined. See http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf.
I recommend removing undefined from
the specification and schema implementations.
John
___________________________________
John Hunt
Senior Technical Content Architect
IBM Collaboration Solutions
From:
Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
To:
dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc:
John Hunt/Cambridge/IBM
Date:
02/17/2014 09:47 PM
Subject:
Question about
learning element
In the 1.2 spec, @value for the lomInteractivityType
element declares several values. According to the spec, the allowable values
are (Active |Expositive |Mixed |Undefined | -dita-use-conref-target):
http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/langref/lomInteractivityType.html
In the DTD and XSD, the values are "active",
"expositive", "mixed", and the usual -dita-use-conref-target.
There is no value called "undefined".
I've noticed several instances in the
Learning and Training topics where the spec gives an upper-case or English
language variant of what the DTD/XSD actually allows (for example, where
the spec lists a value of "very high" but the DTD/XSD needs the
single word variant "veryhigh"). So far I've just corrected those
so that the spec matches the implementation.
In this case, the spec lists a value
"Undefined" that is not legal in the DTD/XSD. I don't know the
learning domain well enough to know if this value is necessary / useful,
so I'm not sure what the proper resolution is. Should we add "undefined"
to the implementation, or should we remove it from the specification? As
always, legal notice, the spec is canonical so "undefined" is
legal -- but with no implementation the spec could remove the value while
keeping our implementation backwards compatible.
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]