[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Normative statements and file-naming conventions
As I worked through incorporating content for the RELAX NG proposal
into the spec, I noticed the following discrepancies relating to
constraint module names:
We used a normative SHOULD in our statements about
constraint module names. (For a reminder about what the normative
RFC-2119 terms mean, see
http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/introduction/c-terminology.html#terminology. Regarding this specific issue, my personal suggestion is that we
should change the file-naming syntax that is explicated in the
spec to match the examples and the names of the DITA 1.2 files. I'm a little at a loss to understand why we used a SHOULD
statement, since I don't think that file names really affect
exchange and interoperability. (If we are mandating conventions
for file names to assist in the construction of automated
generators for document type shells, then I think we ought to say
so.) And then I looked at the "File naming conventions" topic in the
DITA 1.2 spec:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/archSpec/fileext.html#fileext
. In this topic, we used a normative MUST about file names
for the following objects:
In this topic, at least the literal components of the explicated
naming conventions match the examples and files shipped with DITA
1.2. (The variables used are either not explained or so loose that
anything could match them.) I suggest that we (at least) relax this normative MUST to a
SHOULD and correct the naming conventions here to match the
examples and names of the DITA 1.2 files. --
Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype) |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]