RE: [dita] Proposal: Update foreign topic to include processing info for generalization/specialization use case

["Yas Etessam" <yas.etessam@xmetal.com>]

Robert and Paul,

I would support this proposal.  If we go with this approach, can we
avoid saying that all processors should hide foreign content as an
external object in the specification?  I agree with Paul that this level
of detail about processing behaviour does not need to be codified in the
spec.

One suggestion is that we define "generalization" as a process that
produces standard DITA topics from specialized topics.   This could
allow different implementations of processing when it comes to deciding
what should be done with foreign vocabularies and defines a measurable
benchmark.

Best regards,

Yas Etessam


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:36 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Update foreign topic to include processing
info for generalization/specialization use case

Thanks, Paul.

I do have one other thought on this -- rather than trying to hide
foreign content during generalization, what if we export it --
essentially, turn it into an imbedded object? Others have pointed out
that foreign content is really an inline object, so this seems to make
sense architecturally. We could pretty easily turn this:
<math class="+ topic/foreign mathml/math ">
  mathml content here
</math>

into
<foreign class="+ topic/foreign mathml/math ">
  <object data="imbed1.xml" type="DITA-foreign"/> </foreign>

Some additional details on this:
*  The object element may already be used for alternate content. That
would not be exported - so you end up with one object pointing to the
foreign content (type="DITA-foreign" or some equivalent), and one object
with the alternate content.
*  Foreign content may use several main elements -- such as
<foreign><this/><that/></foreign> -- so the exported file should have a
root <foreign> element to remain valid.

I think the basic approach of exporting the info and using <object> is a
lot more elegant than processing instructions, both from a DITA
perspective and from a general XML perspective. It allows me to edit my
topics with mathml, and then generalize and send them to somebody
without mathml for further editing/processing. It also doesn't use any
kludges to hide XML as if it was not XML.

Does this seem like an approach worth pursuing?

Thanks-

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

"Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote on 10/18/2006 08:45:31 AM:

> Actually, I'm okay with 1, 3, or 4, but 4 is what I was suggesting on 
> the telcon and would be my preferred path.
>
> ---
>
> What are the options with XML Schemas?
>
> Am I right to think that--as long as the foreign content is 
> namespaced--we can get things to work by giving the foreign element 
> the appropriate content model (i.e., one that allows any namespaced 
> element)?
>
> ---
>
> As far as DTDs, I think we could give the foreign element an ANY 
> content model and then all the user would have to do is insert 
> declarations such as
>
> <!ELEMENT my:foreign-element ANY>
>
> for each foreign element (without explicitly adding references to 
> these elements in any content model), and things would work.
>
> That doesn't change your point 1 substantively, but it does reduce 
> "using you foreign DTD module" to merely adding a simple declaration 
> for each of your foreign elements making it much simpler to "share" 
> with others.
>
> paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 17 13:16
> > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Update foreign topic to include 
> > processing info for generalization/specialization use case
> >
> > It seems like - if we support the foreign and unknown element
> > - we have
> > these options when using DTDs:
> >
> > 1. We state that, if you use the foreign or unknown elements, you 
> > have no way to share topics with others that do not use your foreign

> > DTD module.
> > This would be the only way to make a DITA document that cannot be 
> > taken back to the topic type that represents a 
> > least-common-denominator, because you can never share with somebody 
> > that does not use this module.
> >
> > 2. We define some way to hide the information when generalizing. 
> > Groups can go back to the most common form; if the common form does 
> > not use the foreign specialization, then they use the alternate 
> > content they (may have) defined with <desc>. So far the only real 
> > proposal for hiding the information is with a PI, which has already 
> > been declared a kludge.
> >
> > 3. We state that foreign content is simply discarded during 
> > generalization
> > - you can't bring it back if you're going to a format that doesn't 
> > support it.
> >
> > 4. . We leave it up to each implementation. This means that if you 
> > generalize with one program, other programs may not be able to bring

> > it back. Currently the spec defines how to generalize, which means 
> > that all implementations should be able to work with 
> > specialized/generalized content in the same way.
> >
> > Does anybody see any other options? Paul, it sounds like you're 
> > suggesting option one -- does that sound right?
> >
> > Thanks-
> >
> > Robert D Anderson
> > IBM Authoring Tools Development
> > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> > (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
> >
> > "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote on 10/17/2006 11:48:36 AM:
> >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Eric Sirois [mailto:esirois@ca.ibm.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 17 09:32
> > > > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: [dita] Proposal: Update foreign topic to include 
> > > > processing info for generalization/specialization use case
> > > >
> > > > The foreign content proposal (#35) for incorporating foreign 
> > > > content in DITA did not have a use case that covered what would 
> > > > happen when an DITA document contain foreign content are 
> > > > generalized the content is not longer valid, when using DTDs for

> > > > validation, because the base DTD does not include the foreign 
> > > > vocabularies.
> > >
> > > When using DTDs, if it is desired for the generalized content to 
> > > be DTD-valid, then the foreign content elements should be added to

> > > the DTD.
> > >
> > > > I propose that we hide the foreign content via a processing 
> > > > instruction in the generalized document. It gets us past the 
> > > > validator issue. The content could then be re-instated during 
> > > > the
> > specialization
> > > > process.  Hiding in a comment was discussed, but there is no 
> > > > guarantee that tools keep comments in the documents.
> > > > Also, it makes
> > > > reinstating the foreign content during specialization much more 
> > > > difficult.
> > >
> > > Putting what should be markup as characters in either a comment or

> > > processing instruction (PI) is quite distasteful to me.
> > >
> > > Also, many tools toss PIs too--not ours unless such is explicitly 
> > > requested, but others do.
> > >
> > > Note, your generalization process will need to get tricky if the 
> > > content you are trying to hide in a PI contains a "?>" string.
> > >
> > > Finally, this all sounds too kludgy and implementation based to me

> > > for a specification.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In the case where <foreign> contains an <image>, <object>, or 
> > > > <desc>, they should not be hidden within the processing 
> > > > instruction.
> > > > All content within <unknown> will be hidden in a processing 
> > > > instruction.
> > >
> > > paul
> >