Re: [dita] DITA 1.1 Doctypes

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@heartsome.net>]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:11 -0500, Robert D Anderson wrote:

Hi Robert,

> Are there any vendor concerns with this? I do not really expect any, but I
> wanted to ask before making the change.
>
> If not, then I will update the modules as follows:
> * In each DTD and module, I'll use public IDs that include version 1.1
> * In the catalog, I'll include the 1.1 IDs and the non-versioned IDs
> * For any DTD or mod file, the non-versioned public ID means the most
> recent version of that file

Thanks. The addition of version number in new DTDs and modules will hep us a lot.

FWIW, I will have to modify the catalogue and point the version without numbers to DITA 1.0. This will allow our tools to deal with DITA 1.0 and 1.1 indistinctly.

> As a matter of process - does anybody know how bookmap should be
> referenced? It is the first version of bookmap, but it is part of DITA 1.1
> -- thus, should the module be called 1.0 or 1.1? Don suggested that OASIS
> might already have naming guidelines for this sort of situation.

If the module is part of DITA 1.1, then for coherency its version should be 1.1 .

Best regards,
Rodolfo

--
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.