[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for DITA namespaces
Options for namespaces for DITA. I think we have the following practical options for using namespaces with DITA 1.0: 1. Have exactly one namespace for all element types, including local specializations. 2. Have exactly two namespaces, one for maps, one for all other element types, including local specializations. 3. Have many namespaces: one for maps, one each for topic, task, reference, concept, different domains, locally-specialized elements, etc. 4. Have two namespaces for DITA-defined types (including domains). Local specializations are in their own namespaces. Of these options, I think that (1) will not work, for the simple reason that maps and topics use the same element type names with different content models. Thus maps and topics are fundamentally different document types and therefore represent different namespaces. I think that (3) is just nuts, but that's mostly because I don't yet understand the implications of having that many namespaces, especially for schema definition and modularization. Option (4) is probably the right answer for the long term for the simple reason that local specializations are clearly in their own space and should, at least intuitively, be in a distinct namespace. What we don't yet understand is exactly how XSD-based declarations would work in this case. My intent is to do some experiments to test options 2 and 4 and see if I can determine anything definitive. Cheers, Eliot -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]