RE: [dita] Foreign Generalization: Should be moved to a non-normative appendix

["Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

I can live with Eliot's suggested wording.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2009 December 01 14:08
> To: Michael Priestley; Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)
> Cc: dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] Foreign Generalization: Should be moved to a non-
> normative appendix
> 
> On 12/1/09 8:46 AM, "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm a little concerned about this - adding foreign to 1.1 was a big
> deal,
> > and part of the compromise that allowed its addition was support for
> > mechanisms that allow exactly the kind of blind generalization up to
> topic
> > that all other sorts of specialization allow.
> >
> > If we need to rewrite the section to make it less file-system-
> specific,
> > that's fine. But all sections on generalization have been normative
> in the
> > past, regardless of element. If we take one piece of the
> generalization
> > mechanism and make it non-normative, then we're pretty much giving
up
> on
> > blind generalization. That's been a basic feature of the
architecture
> up
> > till now.
> 
> I think it should it be sufficient to say something like:
> 
> "When the result of generalization is a new document with an
associated
> DTD
> and that DTD does not provide declarations for any XML content of
> <foreign>
> elements, the generalization processor MAY move non-DITA XML content
to
> external files referenced by  <object> elements or it may enclose the
> non-DITA XML content within a CDATA marked section."
> 
> That statement is, I think, sufficient to indicate that the DITA-
> defined
> generalization mechanism provides for the case and also includes both
> possible solutions in the validation-required case.
> 
> Note that this isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue for XSDs as the
content
> of
> <foreign> is xs:any with a processContents of "skip", so it's only an
> issue
> for generalized documents that use DTDs.
> 
> The remaining implementation details may or may not need to be spelled
> out,
> but if the intent is to make it clear that the generalization
mechanism
> provides for the case, then I think my statement does that without
> imposing
> any particular implementation details.
> 
> Generalization is a bit odd in that there's really no need for the
DITA
> standard to say anything normative about the details of how
> generalization
> is done beyond the rules for managing the class, props, and base
> attributes--everything else is necessarily implementation details that
> will
> vary based on local requirements.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eliot
> 
> --
> Eliot Kimber
> Senior Solutions Architect
> "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
> Main: 610.631.6770
> www.reallysi.com
> www.rsuitecms.com
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php