[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XML-appropriate editing data structures
You are right. In a DoD contractor environment, those are usually called out the logistics analyst who communicates and documents the requirements in the LSAR records. How the author uses those records is detemined by the capabilities of the system. It can be the case that the LSAR record is converted into the appropriate markup. To be clear, in an IETM, the Warning, Caution or Note is typically implemented as a modal dialog. In a paper manual, it is a paragraph/whatever with a very specific format applied. Paired technicians may work to satisfy the acknowledgement requirement. Because these requirements are detailed and explicit by contract deliverable, the ability to test and verify that they are in accordance with the contract requirement (say CDRL, for example) that calls out the specific construct (may quote the DTD or schema verbatim), is helped by the correct-by-construction technique made possible when using context-sensitive editing. In some systems, that is achieved by compiling the DTD/Schema into the editing GUI, and others, by requiring validation checks at some given interval. len From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] At 10:11 AM -0500 4/12/04, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >A DTD can be written to do exactly that by requiring an >acknowledgement of the warning. This is IETM markup >and that can be done. I suppose I can see how it could require an acknowledgement of the warning. However, I still maintain that it is incapable of determining: 1. That a warning is called for. 2. That a warning has been mislabelled as a caution by the writer.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|