Response to Amber Swope

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

Hi, Amber.

After discussion at the DITA TC meeting on 06 February 2024, we decided to retain <glossSynonym>.

However, I note that the original proposal failed to mention <glossShortForm>. My gut sense is that we should remove <glossShortForm> also.

I think that implementations who use the DITA 1.2/1.3 glossentry specialization AND make use of the removed elements can do either of the following:

* Continue to use DITA 1.2 or 1.3 grammar files for their specialziations
* Use DITA 2.0 extension modules to add removed elements back into their company-specific grammar files.

Concerns? Thought? We'll be discussing this at tomorrow's DITA TC meeting.

Kris