[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] weak/strong constraint proposal
I agree with Michael's analysis. I also agree that making "weak" the default is sensible. Cheers, E. On 10/13/09 8:54 AM, "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > I agree that the copy/paste thing is a tangent. > > With respect to Su-Laine's assessment of applicability for 1.2, I > disagree: > > - I do think we're enforcing constraints more than we should for some of > the authoring-focused use cases > - And the general task/constrained task is one of those use cases > - So if we proceed with strong constraints only, that will mean inhibiting > a reuse scenario that several people have called out as likely > - We will also be limiting the usefulness of constraints to implementers > of new doctypes as well, > - And even if we provide a relaxed form in a future release, we won't be > able to make weak the default (we'd need to keep strong as the default, > for backwards compatibility with existing implementations) > > So I am inclined to fix it now, ie in 1.2. The weak constraints proposal > below requires no changes to the doctypes already implemented, since we > want weak constraints on task anyway. So the main change is to distinguish > in the spec between strong constraints (all the currently-described > behavior) and weak constraints (ignored by conref, should not be relied > upon by processing). > > Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) > Lead IBM DITA Architect > mpriestl@ca.ibm.com > http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 > > > > From: > "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> > To: > <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: > 10/11/2009 02:08 PM > Subject: > RE: [dita] weak/strong constraint proposal > > > > I don?t understand why ?Constraining a document will affect copy/paste as > well as conref?. It might, but not in the same way or to the same extent. > > It is true that copy/paste needs to be DTD valid by the time it is done, > but so do other forms of editing changes. What is validated is the actual > markup to be inserted. And implementations are free to make copy/paste as > smart or as dumb as they wish and can, but are not required to, transform > the material being pasted as necessary in an attempt to make it valid. > > Conref validation is different. It isn?t DTD validation and uses > information from the domains and possibly the class attribute to validate > potential rather than actual markup. > > So copy and paste from a general task to a strict task could work > depending on what markup is being moved, while conrefing the same markup > from a general task into a strict task won?t work (at least not for > ?strong? conref validation). But the same could be said for copy and > paste and conref between different topic document types that use different > domains and which do not use constraints. > > -Jeff > > From: Su-Laine Yeo [mailto:su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com] > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:42 PM > To: Michael Priestley; dita@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [dita] weak/strong constraint proposal > > Thanks Michael. I see the value in the proposal and I don?t have a > specific objection to it, however to start the discussion I?ll recap a > couple of things I?ve mentioned in off-list discussions and in a previous > TC meeting: > > 1) Constraining a document will affect copy/paste as well as conref. If > you constrain out <lq> elements, for example, you won?t be able to paste > anything that contains a <lq> element and have it be valid. Depending on > your authoring tool, it could mean not being able to paste that content at > all unless you remove the <lq> element first. > > If an organization?s goal is to simplify the user experience for authors > (by presenting a smaller element list), but they don?t want to strictly > disallow any structures, using constraints will be a problematic way to > achieve their goal regardless of whether we adopt this proposal. > > 2) There are features on the DITA 1.3 list that I think are > higher-priority than this proposal. > > I?m open to being persuaded otherwise, but for now I think that we should > focus on what is already in 1.2. > Happy Thanksgiving to the Canadians, by the way! I?ll be out of the office > on Monday Oct 12. > > Best regards, > Su-Laine > > Su-Laine Yeo > Interaction Design Specialist > JustSystems Canada, Inc. > Office: 778-327-6356 > syeo@justsystems.com > www.justsystems.com > > > > > From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 2:07 PM > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [dita] weak/strong constraint proposal > > > The following proposal is relative to the existing constraint design > documented here: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25090/IssueConstraints12008. > html > > > I'm starting with the assumption that we would want the default or normal > behavior to be weak constraints - so I'm proposing a notation to declare > when a constraint should be respected/required for interoperability, and > letting the default be to assume that the constraint is not required. > > ------------------ > > Proposed notation: optionally precede the normal constraint declaration > with an "s" for strong. > > Example: > s(topic hi-d basicHighlight-c) > > This notation is parallel to the notation for attribute domains, where a > leading "a" is used to identify the value as having special meaning. > > Normally-declared constraints are to be ignored by conref processing, in > order to ease sharing between groups that have implemented constraints > primarily to enforce authoring guidelines, rather than for strict > processing requirements. > > If there is a processor or other strong dependency on a constraint being > present, then the constraint can be declared in the document type with the > prefix "s". The constraint should then be handled in exactly the way > currently described in the existing design. > > -------------------- > > Let me know if this is enough - it's a fairly simple proposal, relative to > the existing one :-) But if it would be useful for me to go in and edit > the original, I can. > > Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) > Lead IBM DITA Architect > mpriestl@ca.ibm.com > http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 > ---- Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]