[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: The trademarking tool
Questions about respecialization:
When I thought through these issues in the
architectural forms context I came to the conclusion that all document
modifications should be done in the most specialized view. Working with
generalized content is only “safe” for read-only applications. That said, I’m not a purist. If
someone wants to do something unsafe in their environment then that’s
their call. But by the same token, if Dana wants to unsafely add specialization-lossy
attributes to his doctype then I don’t think that there is any reason to
stop him. I think that it is inevitable that people
WILL add attributes (including CDATA and URL attributes) because no DITA
authoring tool or validator will complain if they do so. CMS vendors have
already told me that the intend to add attributes for tracking object IDs
(which may be paths or URLs). If respecialization is important then we need to
make it work with this common use case. If it isn’t important then it
shouldn’t stand in the way of the use case. Would it help if I wrote the XSLT 1.0 code
to parse generalized attributes? Paul Prescod |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]