Re: [dita] RE: Problems with the task model

[Kristen James Eberlein <keberlein@pobox.com>]

One thing is abundantly clear to me -- We need to be very clear (and accurate) in how we describe what has changed with DITA 1.2.

Both this discussion and the earlier thread about CTR underscore the fact that there are a lot of people who are quite invested in DITA and to whom a looser task model or a "base" that doesn't include CTR seems (at least initially) utterly and completely alien. We need to keep this audience in mind as we work on the specification (and packaging and whatever) ...

Let's do our best to explain key changes thoughtfully, accurately, and clearly.

Kris

Michael Priestley wrote:

OFF710B98B.97F6C73C-ON8525762E.004DEAB2-8525762E.004E95F9@ca.ibm.com" type="cite">
Hi Steffen,

The one task type is a clear subset of the other without new elements or semantics. It's exactly the problem that constraints were designed to address.

We already support having multiple interpretations of the same topic type - through domains. IE, you can have <task> with programming domain elements integrated, or without. Incorporating constraints is no different, and in fact uses the domains mechanism. We don't rename the root element every time we change the content model, either through constraints or through integrating domain elements.

I'll echo Erik's concern about Su-Laine's note - I can't see any technical reasons why constraints would be extra work to incorporate, other than the extra conref check (which is already custom code for DITA).

The change you propose specifically below would be too large to accomodate in 1.2, and also backwards incompatible - it would require everyone who wanted to continue using the strict task to rename elements in their documents (from <task> to <stricttask>)

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25