You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Discussed at TC January 30, 2018. Much support for title-less topic, Robert expressed some concern about the reference, others expressed similar concern (intent for reference is to support legacy; concern with beginning DITA 2.0 with a new convenience element intended solely for legacy, when DITA 2.0 supports the function natively). Left at Stage 1 for now.
Discussed at TC July 10 and assigned to Dawn Stevens.
Discussed August 21, aim for proposal two weeks out.
After reading through the TC conversation around the subject I must say that I am not convinced by the idea of adding an attribute.
From my point of view the idea of a title-less makes sense from an authoring point of view. If I am writing micro-content, giving a title to my topic makes no sense.
Currently the workaround would be to put micro-content in a section within a topic and then conref this section... But this means losing the benefits of having an independent chunk of content.
Adding an attribute to the title so it is not processed adds complexity for authors who know they do not need a title there. I'm thinking about in-app doc text for example, or embedded content in an IoT context.
Based on stage 1 proposal from Eliot: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00056.html
Discussed at TC January 30, 2018. Much support for title-less topic, Robert expressed some concern about the reference, others expressed similar concern (intent for reference is to support legacy; concern with beginning DITA 2.0 with a new convenience element intended solely for legacy, when DITA 2.0 supports the function natively). Left at Stage 1 for now.
Discussed at TC July 10 and assigned to Dawn Stevens.
Discussed August 21, aim for proposal two weeks out.
Discussed again Sept 18: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201809/msg00036.html
Discussed again Dec 4.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: