Re: [dita] Proposal for DITA namespaces

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>]

Erik Hennum wrote:

> For the DITA design pattern in Schema, we could probably manage
> the type system in an application layer on top of the schema
> definition -- after all, that's how DITA is implemented on DTDs -- but
> there are clear benefits to declaring the type in the syntax.  Instead
> of writing custom applications for all type-sensitive operations,
> common tools can be used.
> 
> For instance, once XSLT processors support type operators, DITA
> fallback processing can be implemented using type expressions
> instead of the current string comparisons on the class attribute.
> The result will be gains for code simplicity and (probably)
> performance.  Similarly, GUI design tools that understand type
> inheritance can be used to define new specializations instead of
> using a text editor and a lot of angle brackets.
> 
> A possible fallback _might_ be to define specializations with a
> Schema design pattern that makes good use of Schema type inheritance
> and to implement an XSLT script that converts the source Schema into
> a simple, monolithic Schema definition that most existing tools
> can support.  

I like this idea--I think it's in line with my basic philosophy and 
practice about doing this type of processing at the application layer.

Cheers,

E.
-- 
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
9390 Research Blvd, #410
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 372-8122

eliot@innodata-isogen.com
www.innodata-isogen.com