[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Re: Inconsistency in markup + xml mention domains
We certainly use xmlelement and xmlatt in our internal information model documentation. Can't say that we use any others from the domain. HTH, --Scott _____________________________________________ Scott Hudson Staff Content Engineer, Product Content Engineering From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Gershon Joseph <gershon@precisioncontent.com> [External Email] Is anyone on the TC using keref on these elements, or has clients that use them? I have never used these elements and wonder if anyone else doesâ If we (the TC) are not aware of any keyref usage, Iâd rather update the spec language and
keep keyref out of them. Gershon Gershon Joseph | Senior Information Architect | Precision Content Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterpriseâ
From:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Robert Anderson <robert.dan.anderson@oracle.com> Hi, I've been making my way through the tech-comm updates making updates for DITA 2.0, and noticed an inconsistency in the DITA 1.3 spec. The <markupname> element (specialized from phrase) and the
XML mention elements (7 elements specialized from <markupname>) all state that they use the universal attributes + outputclass + keyref: However, in the DITA 1.3 vocabulary files, they don't define keyref: We need to fix this for DITA 2.0. Either of these options is valid for the new release; should we:
Thanks, Robert |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]