Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] LW DITA DTDs updated

[Mark Giffin <mark@markgiffin.com>]

Hi Birgit,

The reason we avoid W3C XML Schema, especially for standards purposes, is that because the XML Schema redefine feature (which we use) is defined in an ambiguous way. See this by Eliot Kimber:

http://www.xiruss.org/tutorials/dita-specialization/body/part-config-and-extend/dtd-or-xsd.html

And actually, the official schema for DITA is RelaxNG as of a year or so ago, but I think we are using DTDs in the beginning here for preliminary work on LW DITA because most of us are familiar with it and it's easy.

Regards,
Mark Giffin
Mark Giffin Consulting, Inc.
http://markgiffin.com/

On 8/4/2015 12:56 AM, birgit wrote:

Dear Mark and others,

Thanks for updating the DTDs.

Anyway, I wonder why we (LW DITA)/you still using DTDs instead of XML Schema. My experience is that XML Schema is much more easy to use for specializations and furthermore there are tools which cannot read DTDs anymore but XML Schema well.

Kind regards, Birgit

 

(For whom who don’t know me, I am a freelance XML content engineer and member of OASIS and LW DITA, but unfortunately I haven’t got time to call in on Monday’s.)

 

Van: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org] Namens Mark Giffin
Verzonden: zondag 26 juli 2015 0:17
Aan: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Onderwerp: [dita-lightweight-dita] LW DITA DTDs updated

 

I updated the Lightweight DITA DTDs to cut things down to just topic and map. The files are in the form of an OT plugin here:

https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/dita/subcommittees/LightweightDITA/org.oasis.lwdita

I created branch 0.1 to hold all of the old files, including concept, reference and task files:

https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/dita/subcommittees/LightweightDITA/branches/0.1

Questions:

• I left in the highlight domain but I'm not sure if I should have. Get rid of it?
• I didn't change anything with map but I noticed that it requires a topicmeta under a topicref. Is this correct or are we removing this requirement also?

Thanks to Carlos Evia for assistance!

Mark Giffin