Re: [dita] Prototype DITA 1.1 DTDs

[Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>]

I'd like to second Rodolfo's request. I ran into the same problem while 
trying to validate docs, and happened to have conflicting catalogs. If 
the DTDs and modules were versioned, I would not have run into the conflict.

Best regards,

--Scott

Rodolfo M. Raya wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 16:34 -0500, Robert D Anderson wrote:
>
>     We've talked in the past about having version specific public IDs available
>     in the catalog, but we would also have the version-agnostic version. The ID
>     with no version would always point to the latest set of document types.
>     This allows users to update their DTDs without having to update the DOCTYPE
>     in their files.
>
>     Of course, that particular concern is only a worry for the actual DTD
>     files, not for the modules. So, I'm not sure if we want the modules to use
>     public IDs with versions. My guess would be no, for consistency... but are
>     there any other opinions?
>         
>
>
> Hi,
>
> IMHO, each DTD and module version should have its own version number 
> in the PUBLIC ID. This is the standard procedure that you can find in 
> other XML vocabularies, like DocBook.
>
> DTDs and catalogues are different things. Lazy users can play with 
> their catalogues and make them point to the latest version without 
> updating DOCTYPE declarations in their documents, but people dealing 
> with different versions should be able to differentiate them in a 
> catalogue.
>
> FWIW, I found the problem while preparing my main catalogue to handle 
> DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 at the same time. I expect user of my tools to 
> have DITA 1.0 files, DITA 1.1 files and also their own customisations 
> of DITA. My programs should be able to resolve the right entities and  
> now the entity resolver cannot differentiate between DITA 1.0 and DITA 
> 1.1 because the DTDs have the same PUBLIC IDs .
>
> Please keep in mind that not only technical writers deal with DITA 
> files. I work with translation tools and for my company it is 
> important to handle any official  version of DITA, without asking 
> translators (our end users) that know nothing about DTDs and 
> catalogues to tweak configuration files every time they get a DITA 
> document to translate.
>
> I think that this issue needs to be carefully reviewed.
>
> Best regards,
> Rodolfo M. Raya
> Heartsome
> --
> The information in this e-mail is intended strictly for the addressee, 
> without prejudices, as a confidential document. Should it reach you, 
> not being the addressee, it is not to be made accessible to any other 
> unauthorised person or copied, distributed or disclosed to any other 
> third party as this would constitute an unlawful act under certain 
> circumstances, unless prior approval is given for its transmission. 
> The content of this e-mail is solely that of the sender and not 
> necessarily that of Heartsome.
>


-- 
begin:vcard
fn:Scott Hudson
n:Hudson;Scott
org:Flatirons Solutions;Content Management Services
adr:Suite 200;;4747 Table Mesa Drive;Boulder;CO;80305;USA
email;internet:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com
title:Consultant
tel;work:303-542-2146
tel;cell:303-332-1883
note:Knowledge is Power. Sharing is Empowerment.
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://shudson310.blogspot.com
version:2.1
end:vcard