RE: [dita] DITA 1.1 DTD error

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

I would favor option 2 or 3. Option two probably makes the most sense,
given that I do not anticipate any tools specifically supporting
"longdescre" (even if they do support setting it).

Given that there will be a DTD update for this - I would also like to
include one non-functional change in the DTDs. There is a parameter entity
in the DTDs called filter-atts. It includes all of the attributes that the
spec says are to be used for filtering, flagging, etc. It also includes the
new base attribute, which the spec says is not to be used for filtering. I
would like to move this out of the entity and into the locations which use
this entity. As I said, not a functional change, but it may prevent
misconceptions that come about through browsing the DTD -- which I know
many of you do on weekends.

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 01/08/2007 09:08:11 AM:

> I suggest that we fix the DTD now in 1.1.  Additionally, we
> can do one of three things:
>
> 1.  nothing--it's a bug fix;
>
> 2.  add a comment in the DTD and a note in the spec pointing
>     out that earlier distributions had a misspelling in the DTD;
>
> 3.  allow both longdescref and longdescre attributes on object
>     for 1.1---deprecating longdescre and removing it in 2.0--so
>     that any legacy files using the misspelling won't cause
>     validation errors when used with the DTDs, but indicate
>     that implementations do not need to do anything with the
>     longdescre attribute (since I'm sure no implementations
>     do anything with it now).
>
> paul
>