[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA Proposed Feature: Extensibility of DITA through new attributes
In my opinion, Paul has stated this requirement very well. I would like to see the more complex version implemented based on my reading of his argument.
Since I'm on my way to Australia for two weeks and will miss the next few meetings, I wanted to go on recording supporting this concept.
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:51 AM
Subject: [dita] DITA Proposed Feature: Extensibility of DITA through new attributes
This proposal does not yet have an issue number because we have not yet decided to pursue this issue. Please read the proposal with an eye toward discussing that at a TC meeting (or in email).
There are also some design choices described herin.
DITA Proposed Feature # XX
Extensibility of DITA through new attributes
XML's two extensibility mechanisms are elements and attributes. As its name implies, extensibility is one of XML's key design criteria. Extensbiility (through specialization and customization) is also a key part of DITA's design. But DITA only allows the definition of new elements, not new attributes, through specialization. There are a variety of reasons that people might wish to add their own attributes (discussed in the Use Case section).
DITA itself does not prevent organizations from customizing it with extra attributes of this sort. In fact, it cannot prevent this. These sorts of customizations already exist. What the specification can do is license or proscribe it. If it allows it then attribute-bearing documents will work seamlessly with DITA-based software. If it proscribes it then DITA-validating programs may give error messages about otherwise-harmless attributes.
The most basic proposal is that the DITA spec simply state that document types of DITA may add attributes to specialized elements and base DITA elements. This would require no change to any existing documents or applications. It would imply no additional work on behalf of DITA implementors. The downside of this proposal is that it would imply that attributes added in this way would be lost during the generalization process. The writer does not know of any applications that would be harmed by this situation.
If DITA's design has a hard requirement that the generalization process be lossless then that would imply that some form of attribute specialization is required. This advanced proposal would most likely take the shape of allowing attributes to specialize elements.
In the basic form the costs are minimal. In the more complicated form, we would need to agree on a specialization mechanism and implement it in the DITA toolkit and all generalization/specialization implementations.
I believe that most large organizational implementations of DITA will want to add attributes, if only to use DITA in content management systems that require it. In fact, they will add attributes, whether the DITA specification allows it or not (as organizations do with Docbook, AECMA and other standard DTDs). If the DITA specification disallows this, and DITA software enforces this policy then organizations will have to write programs to strip these attributes before sharing these documents with their business partners.