Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
+1 Nice initiative! > 3 maj 2016 kl. 12:41 skrev Thomas Schraitle : > > Hi, > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:15:24 +0200 > Thomas Schraitle wrote: > >> a DocBook writer asked me why there is no "danger" element in DocBook. >> >> [...] > > I've added an RFE on SourceForge and GitHub: > > * https://sourceforge.net/p/docbook/rfes/311/ > * https://github.com/docbook/docbook/issues/55 > > Maybe the committee can discuss this on their next meeting. :) > > Thanks! > > > -- > Gruß/Regards, >Thomas Schraitle > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
Hi, On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:15:24 +0200 Thomas Schraitle wrote: > a DocBook writer asked me why there is no "danger" element in DocBook. > > [...] I've added an RFE on SourceForge and GitHub: * https://sourceforge.net/p/docbook/rfes/311/ * https://github.com/docbook/docbook/issues/55 Maybe the committee can discuss this on their next meeting. :) Thanks! -- Gruß/Regards, Thomas Schraitle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
On 29 April 2016 at 07:56, Thomas Schraitle wrote: > > Although @role would be probably one solution, in that case I favor to > extend the schema. I propose to allow for the following > reasons: > > * There is a need > * Matches well with ANSI Z535 standard > * It's consistent with the other admonition elements > * Aligns well with DITA if someone has to transform documents back > and forth > * From a language perspective, expresses a higher risk of > injury and/or death than (or any other admonition elements). > (Maybe not useful for software documentation, but DocBook can also be > used in other industries where this is very much needed.) > > > Does it make sense to open an RFE? That way the committee can discuss > this in one of the next meetings? Based on this thread, ask the committee, seems like a worthwhile RFE with a solid user requirement. Longer term, Bobs idea of bringing it into line might be worthwhile putting in the parking lot for rev n+1? regards - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
Hi, thanks to all for the input! On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 20:31:37 -0700 Bob Stayton wrote: > [...] > > In the case of admonitions, the original DocBook authors chose to use > separate elements for the different types, instead of a single > element with an enumerated attribute. It is too late now to switch. I agree, switching to enumerated values would be too late. > I generally suggest adding @role to one of the existing elements, or > extend the schema. Although @role would be probably one solution, in that case I favor to extend the schema. I propose to allow for the following reasons: * There is a need * Matches well with ANSI Z535 standard * It's consistent with the other admonition elements * Aligns well with DITA if someone has to transform documents back and forth * From a language perspective, expresses a higher risk of injury and/or death than (or any other admonition elements). (Maybe not useful for software documentation, but DocBook can also be used in other industries where this is very much needed.) Does it make sense to open an RFE? That way the committee can discuss this in one of the next meetings? -- Gruß/Regards, Thomas Schraitle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
Actually, DocBook has long used this "other" method to extend some enumerated attribute values. On section elements: renderas="other" otherrenderas="..." On : class="other" otherclass="..." On , , , class="other" otherclass="..." On : type="othertype" othertype="..." There are others as well. In the case of admonitions, the original DocBook authors chose to use separate elements for the different types, instead of a single element with an enumerated attribute. It is too late now to switch. I generally suggest adding @role to one of the existing elements, or extend the schema. Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises b...@sagehill.net On 4/28/2016 1:26 PM, Tom Magliery wrote: For the curious, here's what the DITA 1.3 specification allows for the @type attribute on (second subsection on this page): http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/os/part3-all-inclusive/langRef/attributes/thetypeattribute.html The value "other" allows extensibility in conjunction with another attribute @othertype: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/os/part3-all-inclusive/langRef/base/note.html mag - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
RE: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
For the curious, here's what the DITA 1.3 specification allows for the @type attribute on (second subsection on this page): http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/os/part3-all-inclusive/langRef/attributes/thetypeattribute.html The value "other" allows extensibility in conjunction with another attribute @othertype: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/os/part3-all-inclusive/langRef/base/note.html mag -- Tom Magliery JustSystems Canada, Inc. Co-secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee DITA 1.3 Specification: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/dita-v1.3-part0-overview.html -Original Message- From: Peter Flynn [mailto:pe...@silmaril.ie] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:56 PM To: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions? On 04/28/2016 09:24 AM, Dave Pawson wrote: > What is danger to you might be nothing to me? > I think caution is right or a good compromise. I was never clear why a caution was worse than a warning. drop lamp It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue. On 04/28/2016 09:15 AM, Thomas Schraitle wrote: > The element danger would also fit better > to the ANSI standard (I think it was Z535, right?). If there is a need to match with an existing standard/hierarchy/ontology I'd rather see it done in an enumerated attribute than an element type. ///Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
On 04/28/2016 09:24 AM, Dave Pawson wrote: > What is danger to you might be nothing to me? > I think caution is right or a good compromise. I was never clear why a caution was worse than a warning. drop lamp It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue. On 04/28/2016 09:15 AM, Thomas Schraitle wrote: > The element danger would also fit better > to the ANSI standard (I think it was Z535, right?). If there is a need to match with an existing standard/hierarchy/ontology I'd rather see it done in an enumerated attribute than an element type. ///Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
RE: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
That's why ANSI Z535 sets objective criteria to distinguish between the hazard levels (note "will" and "could") DANGER indicates a hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury. WARNING indicates a hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury. CAUTION, used with the safety alert symbol, indicates a hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in minor or moderate injury. -Original Message- From: dave.paw...@gmail.com [mailto:dave.paw...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dave Pawson Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 4:25 AM To: Thomas Schraitle Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions? What is danger to you might be nothing to me? I think caution is right or a good compromise. If presentation is an issue use CSS? regards On 28 April 2016 at 09:15, Thomas Schraitle wrote: > Hi, > > a DocBook writer asked me why there is no "danger" element in DocBook. > > Currently, we have tip, note, important, warning, and caution as > admonition elements. The list is sorted from lowest to highest > "severity". > > However, for writers who want to give a warning about deadly > consequences, caution seems to me a bit "tame". ;) > > Although I'm a bit hesitant to add new elements to the DocBook schema, > maybe we should consider that. The element danger would also fit > better to the ANSI standard (I think it was Z535, right?). > > What do you think? > > > -- > Gruß/Regards, > Thomas Schraitle > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
Hi Frank, On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:33:51 +0200 Frank Arensmeier wrote: > I totally agree with Thomas. As Thomas pointed out, there is an > industry standard in Europe (maybe in other parts of the world too?) > saying that you actually must differentiate between hazard > statements. And danger is used to express a high risk of injury > and/or death, whereas "caution" is actually something else. We’ve > been "solving" this kind of issue before by introducing role="danger">. Thanks Frank for pointing it out so much better than I could do. :)) > However, a more "generic" element would feel much better. And Dave... > no, it’s not about CSS or other styling. It’s actually an element > something that lots of our clients need. Thanks Frank for confirming there is a need for that. :-) -- Gruß/Regards, Thomas Schraitle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
Hi, thanks Dave for your answer. On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:24:51 +0100 Dave Pawson wrote: > What is danger to you might be nothing to me? > I think caution is right or a good compromise. Well, maybe my understanding of the English language could be incomplete, but for me as a non English speaker, "caution" is not an equivalent for "danger". :) Danger sound more, well, dangerous, than caution. ;) Apart from any language issues on my side, let's look at the ANSI Z535 standard: http://www.safetysign.com/help/h40/safety-header According to this ANSI standard, there are these signal words: DANGER”, “WARNING”, “CAUTION” and “NOTICE”. These labels could be matched to the follwoing DocBook elements: WARNING -> NOTICE -> CAUTION -> DANGER -> ??? As you can see, "DANGER" cannot be mapped correctly. You can't use as you suggested here as it is already in use. Writers who want (or must) follow the ANSI Z535 standard cannot do it consistently with DocBook. By the way, DITA contains a where you can select "danger" as a type. > If presentation is an issue use CSS? Well, probably not a presentation issue. Surely, "caution" can be turned into a "danger" without too much trouble. But my concerns are listed above. -- Gruß/Regards, Thomas Schraitle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
I totally agree with Thomas. As Thomas pointed out, there is an industry standard in Europe (maybe in other parts of the world too?) saying that you actually must differentiate between hazard statements. And danger is used to express a high risk of injury and/or death, whereas "caution" is actually something else. We’ve been "solving" this kind of issue before by introducing . However, a more "generic" element would feel much better. And Dave... no, it’s not about CSS or other styling. It’s actually an element something that lots of our clients need. Just my 2 cents… /frank Paligo - The truly user-friendly CMS for technical documentation www.paligo.se > 28 apr 2016 kl. 10:24 skrev Dave Pawson : > > What is danger to you might be nothing to me? > I think caution is right or a good compromise. If presentation is an > issue use CSS? > > > regards > > > On 28 April 2016 at 09:15, Thomas Schraitle wrote: >> Hi, >> >> a DocBook writer asked me why there is no "danger" element in DocBook. >> >> Currently, we have tip, note, important, warning, and caution as >> admonition elements. The list is sorted from lowest to highest >> "severity". >> >> However, for writers who want to give a warning about deadly >> consequences, caution seems to me a bit "tame". ;) >> >> Although I'm a bit hesitant to add new elements to the DocBook schema, >> maybe we should consider that. The element danger would also fit better >> to the ANSI standard (I think it was Z535, right?). >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> -- >> Gruß/Regards, >>Thomas Schraitle >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook] Add "danger" to the list of possible admonitions?
What is danger to you might be nothing to me? I think caution is right or a good compromise. If presentation is an issue use CSS? regards On 28 April 2016 at 09:15, Thomas Schraitle wrote: > Hi, > > a DocBook writer asked me why there is no "danger" element in DocBook. > > Currently, we have tip, note, important, warning, and caution as > admonition elements. The list is sorted from lowest to highest > "severity". > > However, for writers who want to give a warning about deadly > consequences, caution seems to me a bit "tame". ;) > > Although I'm a bit hesitant to add new elements to the DocBook schema, > maybe we should consider that. The element danger would also fit better > to the ANSI standard (I think it was Z535, right?). > > What do you think? > > > -- > Gruß/Regards, > Thomas Schraitle > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
