OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] Policy Decision: Loose or Not


Implementors can already constrain users to single typed topics by changing the doctype to use the appropriate concept/task/concept/reference DTD. 
 
In terms of conversion, there could be cases where legacy conversion to DITA would result in a single topic with mixed information type sub-topics. 
In terms of specialization, ditabase is intentionally lax to serve as an appropriate base for specialization. 
 
I agree with JoAnn that authoring with ditabase might not follow the best practice but I don't see the justification for eliminating it for DITA 1.1.   
 
Lets consider leaving ditabase loose and encourage implementors to use the single-typed DTDs for the appropriate information type.  Providing a ditabase DTD for composite documents might be an option that some users, conversion vendors and specializers might want to keep. 
 
Finally, this feels like a large change given the timeline for DITA 1.1's release.  If the rest of the TC members feel strongly that it should be eliminated,  I'd hope that we'd start with deprecation rather than elimination.
 
Yas Etessam  
 

From: JoAnn Hackos [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:10 PM
To: Dana Spradley; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Policy Decision: Loose or Not

This is my position exactly. Let's eliminate ditabase. I'm attending a meeting this week battling with a "consultant" who has used ditabase to recreate docbook inside a dita topic.The entire book is in one topic. It's infuriating that people want to corrupt the entire concept.
 
JoAnn

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
303-232-7586
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com

 

 


From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:04 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] Policy Decision: Loose or Not

Then the most logical choice would be to eliminate ditabase from the standard - and let implementors do their own ditabases as a practical measure, if they want to give authors a way of writing non-conformant topic collections prior to splitting them up into conformant topics.

--Dana

W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
Dana Spradley wrote:
This would be a rather extreme change of policy, wouldn't it?

As I understand it, ditabase is expliticly *non*-normative, and as the spec currently says any nesting or other arrangement of topics in it "has no particular output implications; it simply allows you to create multiple topics of different types at the same level in a single document."

Unless I've completely misunderstood the implications of how things are delivered, all the declarations are normative. That is, the DITA standard consists of the architecture specification, the language reference, and the accompanying DTD and XSD declarations, all of which are normative.

That is, the very fact that we need to have language in the language reference about when different containment rules apply indicates that we have two different but normative rules.

If it wasn't normative then we wouldn't have the language in the spec.

Cheers,

E.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]