Re: [dita] DITA 1.1 Doctypes

[Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>]

Are there any vendor concerns with this? I do not really expect any, but I
wanted to ask before making the change.

If not, then I will update the modules as follows:
* In each DTD and module, I'll use public IDs that include version 1.1
* In the catalog, I'll include the 1.1 IDs and the non-versioned IDs
* For any DTD or mod file, the non-versioned public ID means the most
recent version of that file

As a matter of process - does anybody know how bookmap should be
referenced? It is the first version of bookmap, but it is part of DITA 1.1
-- thus, should the module be called 1.0 or 1.1? Don suggested that OASIS
might already have naming guidelines for this sort of situation.

Thanks-

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787

Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com> wrote on 06/20/2006
10:49:50 PM:

> I'd like to second Rodolfo's request. I ran into the same problem while
> trying to validate docs, and happened to have conflicting catalogs. If
> the DTDs and modules were versioned, I would not have run into the
conflict.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --Scott
>
> Rodolfo M. Raya wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 16:34 -0500, Robert D Anderson wrote:
> >
> >     We've talked in the past about having version specific public
> IDs available
> >     in the catalog, but we would also have the version-agnostic
> version. The ID
> >     with no version would always point to the latest set of document
types.
> >     This allows users to update their DTDs without having to
> update the DOCTYPE
> >     in their files.
> >
> >     Of course, that particular concern is only a worry for the actual
DTD
> >     files, not for the modules. So, I'm not sure if we want the
> modules to use
> >     public IDs with versions. My guess would be no, for
> consistency... but are
> >     there any other opinions?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > IMHO, each DTD and module version should have its own version number
> > in the PUBLIC ID. This is the standard procedure that you can find in
> > other XML vocabularies, like DocBook.
> >
> > DTDs and catalogues are different things. Lazy users can play with
> > their catalogues and make them point to the latest version without
> > updating DOCTYPE declarations in their documents, but people dealing
> > with different versions should be able to differentiate them in a
> > catalogue.
> >
> > FWIW, I found the problem while preparing my main catalogue to handle
> > DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 at the same time. I expect user of my tools to
> > have DITA 1.0 files, DITA 1.1 files and also their own customisations
> > of DITA. My programs should be able to resolve the right entities and
> > now the entity resolver cannot differentiate between DITA 1.0 and DITA
> > 1.1 because the DTDs have the same PUBLIC IDs .
> >
> > Please keep in mind that not only technical writers deal with DITA
> > files. I work with translation tools and for my company it is
> > important to handle any official  version of DITA, without asking
> > translators (our end users) that know nothing about DTDs and
> > catalogues to tweak configuration files every time they get a DITA
> > document to translate.
> >
> > I think that this issue needs to be carefully reviewed.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rodolfo M. Raya
> > Heartsome
> > --
> > The information in this e-mail is intended strictly for the addressee,
> > without prejudices, as a confidential document. Should it reach you,
> > not being the addressee, it is not to be made accessible to any other
> > unauthorised person or copied, distributed or disclosed to any other
> > third party as this would constitute an unlawful act under certain
> > circumstances, unless prior approval is given for its transmission.
> > The content of this e-mail is solely that of the sender and not
> > necessarily that of Heartsome.
> >
>
>
> --
> [attachment "scott.hudson.vcf" deleted by Robert D
Anderson/Rochester/IBM]