Re: [dita] My increasing concerns about LwDITA and template-based specialization

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

I think we need to clearly separate utilities that make *defining* new specializations (and, more generally, configuring document types) easier from what needs to be standardized.

For LWDita, what needs to be standardized are the specializations and configurations themselves. That is, the definition of what, from the existing DITA 1.3 vocabulary, is and isn’t included in LWDita. 

Utilities that it easier to *define* new specializations are just that, utilities and are no more appropriate for standardization than the RNG-to-DTD transform are. Some kind of template-based specialization facility would definitely be useful but it doesn’t need to be standardized and it definitely shouldn’t be standardized as part of the LWDIta work.

There’s no barrier to anyone today defining any kind of template-based approach to specialization they want as long as the result is working grammars that reflect the DITA rules for @class and @domains attribute values. 

The only thing that really matters for specialization in DITA is the *values* of the @class attributes as they occur in documents as parsed. We depend on grammar files to provide those values through attribute value defaulting but that is just a convenience. It’s a convenience that the DITA spec has standardized to help ensure interchange and interoperation of documents as a recognition of the practical value of attribute defaults, but even there, the coding patterns for grammars is itself mostly a convenience to make managing grammars and document type configuration easier and to facilitate interchange and interoperation of grammars.

Cheers,

Eliot

--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
 


On 1/19/17, 7:14 AM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:

    I think we all would like to specialization easier to do. But ...
    
    I'm not sure that adding new attributes and elements in the spec in 
    order to drive tool development is an appropriate thing to do.
    
    I think it would 100% appropriate if someone wants to build and sell an 
    application, and include with the application directions on how to 
    create an annotated XML file that can processed to get a monolithic DTD. 
    Or have an Open Source project which produces a plug-in that oXygen will 
    bundle with their application.
    
    However, I truly don't see an argument for adding new elements and 
    attributes to the specification in order to develop one-time artifacts 
    (the templates) that can be fed into tooling to autogenerate DTDs
    
    I'm going to need a whole lot more convincing. It just seems wrong.
    
    
    -- 
    Best,
    Kris
    
    Kristen James Eberlein
    Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
    Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
    www.eberleinconsulting.com
    +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    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