Additional thoughts about issue #64, "Redesign hazardstatement"

[Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>]

I started a discussion about the hazard statement domain on the dita-users list.

The key points that came up were:

• Implementations (especially small companies, with little or no resources for customization of style sheets) struggle with the order of the child elements of <messagepanel>: <typeofhazard>, <consequence>, <howtoavoid>.
• Yes, implementations struggle with where <hazardsymbol> is allowed -- But folks who want to associate <hazardsymbol> with <messagepanel> are also assuming a one-to-one correspondence.
• There are new standards and guidelines that we should consider:

• IEC/IEEE 82079-1:2019: https://www.iso.org/standard/71620.html
  First published in 2012, refreshed in 2019
• tekom practical guide to Creating "Safety Notes and Warning Messages": https://www.technical-communication.org/publications/guidelines-and-practical-guides/safety-notes-and-warning-messages.html
• Japan Machinery Federation:
  https://www.torisetsu-master.jp/manual_guide/img/manual_guide.pdf
  

Best,
Kris

Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)