[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Notes on Compound Documents
Greetings, to save at least some time during the conference call, here are my notes and additions to the Compound Documents Statement. 1. Question of terminology (what is "compound document"?) should be put first. 2. There is at least four frequenly used patterns which can be called "compound documents": a) encapsulation of formats (e.g. MathML used within TEI document). b) application-specific extensions (e.g. XSLT extensions) c) specializations in DITA sense d) compound (combined) documents in a sense of DITA maps For a) and b), namespace mechanism is usually used, and DITA is a poor choice for this. For c), and d), the DITA is good. You may ask why DITA is not good for b)? The answer is that in many existing applications such as XSLT, Schemas, etc. the established way to do the extensions is the use of another namespace. DITA is good only for the documents which were DITA from the start. So, I would like to see something is statement which says more explicitly and less abstract _what DITA is good for_. Regards, -- Paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]