[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] DITA 1.1 DTD error
I agree with Robert. I feel we should add the correctly spelled attribute and let the mistake filter out in 2.0; and the we should deprecate the bad attribute in 1.1. It's only a minor DTD/XSD update that's low risk (well, almost no-risk) and some documentation updates. Gershon. -- Robert D Anderson wrote: > After thinking about this more and consulting a few co-workers, I'd really > prefer Paul's third approach now: >> 3. allow both longdescref and longdescre attributes on object >> for 1.1---deprecating longdescre and removing it in 2.0--so >> that any legacy files using the misspelling won't cause >> validation errors when used with the DTDs, but indicate >> that implementations do not need to do anything with the >> longdescre attribute (since I'm sure no implementations >> do anything with it now). > > I do think it's relatively unlikely that people are using this attribute > today. However, I think it's possible that somebody would set it without > noticing that a letter was missing. They wouldn't know it was broken unless > they looked at the docs at the same time, or carefully checked the output > to find it was not working. > > Rather than have people blame DITA (or their current tool) when their docs > no longer validate, I'd rather deprecate it for a while first. We can have > the toolkit warn people and explain how to fix the problem; the language > reference can indicate that tools may issue an error for the bad version. > > Anybody else care about this, aside from myself and Paul? > > Thanks- > > Robert D Anderson
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]