Implement the idea of a Process: Process: Title [302] [400] [599] [12] The equivalent output is: Section: Title [302] [next: 400] [400] [prev: 302] [next:599] [599] [prev: 400] [next: 12] [12] So the next and previous injections should say something like: Next in "Title" >> and Previous in "Title" <<
This allows us to inject something like: << Previous step in Installing the Application Next step in Installing the Application >>
Processes should link together only the Tasks, skipping over Concepts and Reference topics. Given: Process: Title [302] [400] [599] [12] Where 302, 400, and 12 are Tasks; and 599 is a Reference, the equivalent specification is: Section: Title [302] [next: 400] [400] [prev: 302] [next: 12] [599] [12] [prev: 400] Using example titles: Install RHEV Procedure A [next: B] Procedure B [prev: A] [next: D] Reference C Procedure D
Added: A Process must be inside of a chapter or section. A process can be added by using with either of these two methods: Process: <Title> [<Topic ID>] [<Topic ID>] etc... Process: <Title> [<Topic ID>, <Topic ID>, etc...] The topic must be an existing topic at this stage. The post content specification won't be expanded. This is since no data is stored about level's or mapping it would be impossible to tell if the section was a process. As such this will be able to be expanded with the --expand option (see Bug #752997) to be implemented for the next build. No Tags, Relationships or targets can be applied to a process, however they will still inherit tags from chapters/global tags. All topics that are a Task inside of the process are given a unique Target in the format of T<Line Number>0<Random Number><count>. I.e. The process is on line 50 and the target to be created for is topic 4 in the process, the output would be T500494 The output from the build wraps the "Next step in "Title" >>" and "<< Previous step in "Title"" in a <link> tag within the topic xml.
Allow new tasks to participate in processes, using the Target ID. Treat it as an X and include it as another instance.
Also, break up the link so that it is: <xref linkend="<<next step>>">Next</xref> in <xref linkend="<<process section>>"><<Process Title>></xref>
New Process syntax: Process: Host a Tea Party Invite your friends [N, Task] Optional: Buy new china [N, Task] Prepare new china [N, Task] Decide on the type of tea [N, Task] [B: 23, 56] Brew a pot of green tea [23] [B: 56, 76] [R: N1] Make a fruit tea [56] Brew a pot of fruit tea [X3] [B: 23, 76][R: N1] Serve the tea [76] Optional: Keep the Party Going! [N, Task] [B: 23, X3] Congratulations on your first Tea Party! [N, Task] Optional: Find more information on our website [560]
Let's break this into multiple levels of support: Initial Support for Processes: Serial chaining of tasks Example: Process: Download the Platform Log in to Customer Portal [456] Software options [74] Download Software [33] [R: 74] Verify the Checksum [56] Topic 74 is a reference, the others are tasks. This generates something like: <section id="process84"> <title>Download the Platform</title> <procedure> <step><para><xref linkend="topic456"/></para></step> <step><para><xref linkend="topic33"/></para></step> <step><para><xref linkend="topic56"/></para></step> </procedure> <section id="topic456> ... <para>Next in <xref linkend="process84"/>: <xref linkend="topic33"/>. </para> </section> <section id="topic74"> ... </section> <section id="topic33"> <para>Previous in <xref linkend="process84"/>: <xref linkend="topic456"/>. </para> ... <para>See Also: <xref linkend="topic74"/></para> <para>Next in <xref linkend="process84"/>: <xref linkend="topic56"/>. </para> </section> <section id="topic56"> <para>Previous in <xref linkend="process84"/>: <xref linkend="topic84"/>. </para> ... </section> </section>
Moving this back to Assigned since it hasn't been ON_DEV for a while now. At this stage the only thing left to do is the OPT component (which at a quick glance was added to this bug so I'll track down the example).
We have a basic version of this working, however it has been proved to be useless without adequate styling (see BZ #807673). So for now I'm going to defer this RFE until a later stage.