OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [dita] Some rambling thoughts about the domains attribute


Read the analysis in its entirety - I'm impressed. And thanks for the feedback - it all sounds correct to me.

> Now, when it comes time to
> interoperate, the names that were dictated by 2.6.3.7 mean entirely
> different things.


Exactly. 5 people could come up with 5 constraints that all use the token
(topic hi-d basic-HighlightingDomain-c)

Those constraints could all limit the highlighting domains in different ways. Alternatively, 5 companies could come up with exactly the same constraint, and all use a different token - such as a variant of
(topic hi-d companyName-HighlightingDomain-c)

> I don't believe that we could come up with a token-based
> grammar for @domains that would solve these problems.


Agreed - to be meaningful and unique, any token language that expressive would have to be as expressive as the constraint modules themselves.

Regards,

Robert D. Anderson
DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification,
Digital Services Group


E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com
Digital Services Group
11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA


Inactive hide details for Bob Thomas ---01/04/2017 03:24:10 PM---Despite the warnings, I went ahead and read the analysis in itBob Thomas ---01/04/2017 03:24:10 PM---Despite the warnings, I went ahead and read the analysis in its entirety. I am left with the followi

From: Bob Thomas <bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com>
To: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: OASIS DITA TC List <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 01/04/2017 03:24 PM
Subject: Re: [dita] Some rambling thoughts about the domains attribute
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>





Despite the warnings, I went ahead and read the analysis in its entirety. I am left with the following impressions:My interest in this topic is primarily with respect to constraints. Not only does @domains fail to provide enough information, it can also be ambiguous. Consider this example from spec section 2.6.3.7 DTD: Coding requirements for constraint modules:

@domain value (topic hi-d basic-HighlightingDomain-c) is associated with this content-model fragment: <!ENTITY % HighlightingDomain-c-ph "b | i" >. But, who is to say that in the land of limitless interchange, there isn't some other Information Architect who has decided that the content-model fragment is this: <!ENTITY % HighlightingDomain-c-ph "sub | sup" >. Now, when it comes time to interoperate, the names that were dictated by 2.6.3.7 mean entirely different things. This deficiency means that the current @domain naming conventions for constraints are insufficient. At best, they say that constraints have been applied and things may or may not work. I don't believe that we could come up with a token-based grammar for @domains that would solve these problems. Given that, why have any constraint tokens at all?

Best Regards,
Bob Thomas
Tagsmiths, LLC



On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Regards,

Robert D. Anderson
DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification,
Digital Services Group


E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com
Digital Services Group
11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA




--
Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)






[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]