I also don't see any problem with there being two
normative alternatives for compound documents: one the actual standard
(you can only nest topics of the same infotype, and even that is
discouraged), the other a standard way for people to deviate from the
actual standard, up to a point (ditabase at composition time, and
perhaps for storage - but not for output).|
Misusing <dita> to support complex compound documents for which
the standard provides a normative alternative - maps - seems to me to
violate the standard - in much the same way as using requiredcleanup
for other than conversion purposes would.
What's the use of a standard, if it doesn't enforce some pretty tight
rules, consonant with its guiding principles (here, topic orientation)?
At least DITA is also pragmatic enough to also provide some normative
ways of subverting the rules, if you want to.
The looseness Eliot is advocating is part of what has turned people off
Michael Priestley wrote:
I don't see the problem in there
two normative doctype alternatives. Each one is clear in its context.
you are using ditabase.dtd, you must allow nesting of other types; if
are using concept.dtd, you must not.
If we do need to address this in
I'd suggest saying that the rules on which topic types can nest which
types are not normative, and the rules set in the doctypes can be
by customized doctypes.
If we want to ditch normative
for one, we should ditch it for both. Otherwise I don't see how we can
say concept must allow nesting of task in ditabase.dtd, and that's
but it can disallow it in concept.dtd, and that's not.
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
Dana Spradley wrote:
> What edits was Eliot suggesting?
What I'm suggesting is that the normative value of info-types be "topic
| concept | reference | task | glossentry", which is the value used
the ditabase declaration set. We further say that the shell document
types "concept.dtd", "reference.dtd", and "task.dtd"
are *examples* of
how the loose constraints can be tightened using the provided
This has the effect of removing the need to explain why there are two
different effective "contained by" statements for various elements
makes it clear that the standard is not imposing *required* constraints
as reflected in the topic-type-specific shell document types.
Note that this doesn't require any change to the existing declarations,
just a clarification that the type-specific shells are *examples*.
Note that I *am not* saying that the "dita" element as currently
is inherently good or bad--that's irrelevant to this discussion. I'm
just asserting that the normative constraints defined by the
specification should be clearly stated as being "as far as the standard
is concerned, any topic type can contain any other topic type". This
does not preclude adding (or retaining, if there is one) statements to
the effect that, in practice, one should only nest topics of different
types when it is clearly appropriate. I think the specification is very
clear that using <dita> to contain elements has no processing
Note that as a practical matter, there *has to be* a general containing
element that allows, as direct children, any topic type. This is needed
simply so that authors have full choice over how they organize topics
into documents *for storage purposes*. But allowing a container like
"dita" to contain, as direct children, any topic type is
not the same
as allowing those child topics to contain any topic type: the
declarations are specifically designed to allow you to still control,
a topic type basis, what they can and can't contain.
That is, I can (more or less easily) configure the ditabase
to allow <dita> to contain any topic type but not to allow those
to contain any topics types I don't want them to contain. Looking at
ditabase.dtd, the only change that I think would be useful would be to
change the declaration of the dita element to use a new parameter
entity, dita-info-types, declared as follows:
<!ENTITY % dita-info-types
This makes it parallel with the other shell document types and allows a
configurator to control the topics allowed within <dita> separate
those allowed within the individual types, by replacing "%info-types;"
with an explicit list of topic types (and the existing mechanism of
setting info-types would also work).
While I appreciate JoAnn's concerns about people misusing DITA, that is
outside the purview of the standard--it's not the standard's job to
enforce good practice, only to allow it and encourage it. Misuse of
<dita> is both a matter of opinion and a matter of education. The
we can say in the standard is that that use of <dita> is
be poor practice.
W. Eliot Kimber
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759