[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] How much flexibility do specializers have to make exceptionsto behaviors that are outlined in the DITA standard?
Ogden, Jeff wrote: > In our discussions we’ve been talking about “markup/syntax” and > “processing behaviors”. Perhaps we need three categories: > > Markup/syntax; > > Non-appearance related processing behaviors; and > > Appearance related processing behaviors. I'm not sure what you mean by "markup/syntax"--can you provide examples? But I definitely agree that there should be a clear separation between processing that does not affect appearance (presentation) and processing that is pure presentation. One way to think of these distinctions is as DITA-to-DITA transforms vs DITA-to-rendition transforms. This is more or less reflected in the way the Toolkit is implemented: phase one is a DITA-to-DITA transform, phase two is a DITA-to-rendition transform. I think that, with probably very few exceptions, the DITA-to-DITA processing (e.g., conref, props= attributes, keyref) must be manditory since it reflects core semantics of the DITA standard that are independent of whatever rendition might be generated from the data. [NOTE: Some things, like the presentation result of reltable links, may look like DITA-to-DITA processing but they are really pure presentation. That is, we cannot necessarily take what the Toolkit does today as a definitive guide as to what is manditory processing and what is presentation. In the case of relationship tables, the tables simply establish abstract relationships: what you do with those relationships is entirely a matter of presentation.] By contrast, the presentation effect of any DITA element has to be entirely use-case-specific otherwise there would be no flexibility at all (and people would just ignore any such requirements anyway). For example, I'm in the process of designing a specialization of xref that will be used, in the *print rendition*, to position a topic relative to some point in another topic. But I'm not changing the core semantic of xref (for example, I can't change the addressing rules that determine what topic the xref points to). While the spec can and should describe suggested or default or typical presentation effects for given elements, those cannot be normative. Likewise, while the non-presentation semantics of DITA can be *thought of* as DITA-to-DITA transforms, they cannot be normatively defined in terms of transformation--they must be normatively defined declaratively in terms of the what the effective result is. That is, any language like "X is transformed to Y" or "X becomes Y" must be restated in a way that simply states the post condition (e.g., "the effective value is Y"). Non-normative notes can be used to describe sample algorithms that produce the correct result, but the algorithms themselves cannot be normative, only informative. The XSLT 2 and XSL-FO 1.1 specifications are excellent examples of combining declarative normative specifications with illustrative non-normative procedural examples. Cheers, Eliot -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 610.631.6770 www.reallysi.com www.rsuitecms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]