Then I would vote for the shorter version (âDITA 2â or âDITA2â).
For some reason, I find â2.xâ painful to look at.
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
From: Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:25 PM
To: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>
Cc: Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [dita] Un-versioned URNs/public IDs with DITA 2.0
I was about to say I like Eliot's suggestion, but when starting from new like this -- what is the difference between
"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2 Task//EN"
and
"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2.x Task//EN"
I ask because ... I don't think there is or ever would be one. With earlier releases, we started with the one and only unversioned one, and "1.x" came about as a way to say "latest within 1.x but no further". In the end, because 2.0 is breaking things, the original unversioned one ended up meaning the same thing.
My assumption at this point is that with any 2.1 or 2.2, we'll expect to stay backwards compatible with 2.0. But looking into my super powerful crystal ball, I find it hard to imagine that a decade from now we'll be having a DITA 3.0 that is backwards compatible with 2.0 -- and even if we did, neither of the public IDs above would really make sense.
So it seems like having one of the above, but not both, is enough to mean "latest in the DITA 2.x series"?
Robert D. Anderson |
E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com |
|
Eliot Kimber ---09/11/2018 11:30:13 AM---I wonder if rather than saying "no unversioned URNs" that we use a distinct base name for DITA 2, so
From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>
To: Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 09/11/2018 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [dita] Un-versioned URNs/public IDs with DITA 2.0
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
I wonder if rather than saying "no unversioned URNs" that we use a distinct base name for DITA 2, so the "unversioned" identifier would be:
"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2 Task//EN"
And the versioned identifiers would be:
"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2.0 Task//EN"
"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2.x Task//EN"
That would keep the DITA 2 identifiers from conflicting with 1.x identifiers but maintain the "unversioned/versioned" distinction.
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
ïOn 9/11/18, 11:07 AM, "Chris Nitchie" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote:
In todayâs meeting and our discussion about nesting steps and removing sub-steps, it occurred to me that with all these breaking changes, we should probably stop providing un-versioned public IDs and URNs in DITA 2.0 (e.g. "-//OASIS//DTD DITA Task//EN"). Otherwise, DITA 2.0-compliant toolchains encountering a document with an unversioned public ID or schema reference will be unable to determine which grammar files to use to parse and validate. I suggest that all catalogs we provide with the grammar files include 2.0 as well as 2.x designations, but not unversioned designations. That way, an un-versioned identifier will refer to the 1.3 grammars, and a reference to 2.x can be used for the most-recent post-2.0 grammar files, retaining the flexibility while avoiding the ambiguity.
I don't think this probably rises to the level of a full DITA 2.0 proposal, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the TC so it doesn't slip through the cracks.
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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