Re: [dita] 1.2 Requirements Ranking

["W. Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>]

Erik Hennum wrote:
> Hi, Eliot:
> 
> Good to have this thoughtful review of the full list. A specific follow 
> up on issue 12008:
> 
> - 12008 - Potentially very complicated, not clear that it's needed, 
> could be controversial

By "not clear that it's needed" I don't meant that the requirement isn't 
genuine but that the *solution* as specified isn't needed given the 
ability to enable configuration using normal DTD and schema methods.

That is, if DITA took a DocBook-style approach to the declarations and 
made very content model a parameter entity/group then the existing 
configuration mechanisms would be sufficient to enable precise control 
over what is allowed in a given context.

If XSD 1.1 includes the assertion mechanism that Mike Kay has been 
championing on the xmlschema dev list, then this requirement could be 
completely satisfied using XSD schemas with assertions (which, if fully 
realized, would let you use any XPath expression to assert constraints 
on any element).

My fear is that the proposal is essentially defining a new schema 
language, which we definitely don't want to do.

I have already found it frustrating in my own recent DITA work that 
every content model is not separately parameterized--I see no reason why 
they should not be and if they were, most, if not all of this 
requirement could be met using existing mechanism.

Cheers,

Eliot

-- 
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759
(214) 954-5198

ekimber@innodata-isogen.com
www.innodata-isogen.com