[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] strict task vs. general task vs. the file naming and module rules
Eliot, On the one hand you say: > I don't think it's going
to come as a surprise to any 1.1 user that 1.2 is a significant change to DITA and on the other you say: > DITA 1.2 is fully
backward compatible with DITA 1.1 Even if DITA 1.2 is fully backward compatible with DITA
1.1 in some legalistic sense (I'm not agreeing that it is), I hope you can see
that some people might not be expecting "significant change" to
existing specializations/customizations when they upgrade to a new "compatible"
version of the spec. -Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:42 PM > To: Ogden, Jeff; Joann Hackos; Michael Priestley > Cc: dita; Park Seth-R01164 > Subject: Re: [dita] strict task vs. general task vs.
the file naming > and module rules > > On 11/13/09 3:26 PM, "Ogden, Jeff"
<jogden@ptc.com> wrote: > > > Eliot wrote: > > > >> I don't think it's going to come as a
surprise to any 1.1 user that > 1.2 is a > >> significant change to DITA. > > > It might if we continue to claim that DITA 1.2
is compatible with > DITA 1.1. > > > > I still hope we do not go forward with option
(1), but if we do, I > don't think > > we can continue to claim that DITA 1.2 is
compatible with DITA 1.1 > and 1.0. > > Instead I think we'll need to say something
like: > > > > > > > >
· DITA 1.2 is mostly
compatible with DITA 1.1 and 1.0. > > > >
· DITA 1.2 is largely
compatible with DITA 1.1 and 1.0. > > > >
· DITA 1.2 is compatible
with DITA 1.1 and 1.0 except for the > > following changes xxxx, xxxx, ..., and xxxx. > > > >
· DITA 1.2 is compatible
with DITA 1.1 and 1.0 except for the > items > > listed in Appendix XX of the DITA 1.2
Architectural Specification. > > I don't think that's fair--DITA 1.2 is fully
backward compatible with > DITA > 1.1 in that all conforming DITA 1.1 documents will
continue to be > conforming > DITA 1.2 documents. > > There is nothing in the requirement for backward
compatibility that > says we > can't, for example, relax constraints. We cannot
*add* constraints. > > I think there would be more room for complaint if we
hadn't added the > constraint module for task. But we did. Anyone can
use it and most will > use > it automatically without realizing it. > > We're fixing a serious design flaw in DITA 1.0
(overconstrained task) > and > doing it in such a way that the majority of users
will probably never > even > notice and the ones who do notice have a ready fix
at hand (the task > constraint module). > > > Is anyone working on a draft of the
"upgrade guide" chapter or > document that > > we've said is needed? > > I will certainly sign up to contribute if no-one
else has volunteered. > > Cheers, > > E. > > -- > 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]