Re: [dita-learningspec] FW: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated yetagain]

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 4/23/08 9:56 AM, "john_hunt@us.ibm.com" <john_hunt@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi Eliot and all,
> 
>>> most users will be creating specializations simply to provide friendlier
> names for learning content elements since the "lc*" names are appropriate
> for the standard declarations but not that nice for end users authoring
> content.
> 
> Is there a "friendlier" set of names we should be using out of the box,
> instead of the lc* names?
> 
> We adopted the lc prefix to avoid potential naming collisions with
> elements in other DITA specializations, but perhaps there's a better way.

I think the lc* names are appropriate for the standard. Because DITA 1.x
cannot use namespaces in any general way, using a prefix is the only thing
you can do to help ensure that your module's base names don't conflict with
any names anyone else might want to use.

In the context of a local environment, where you have more control over the
sets of specialization modules you are integrating for a given shell type,
you can have more generic names.

I don't think any standard DITA specialization for 1.x should expect to be
able to define "friendly" names for its types.

In DITA 2.x, when we will have to find a way to make namespaced names work,
it will be possible to have friendlier local names because you can depend on
namespace mechanisms to avoid conflicts. But not today.

Cheers,

Eliot
-- 
Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect
"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
Main: 610.631.6770
www.reallysi.com
www.rsuitecms.com