[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] 12005 supports 12052--adding DITAArchVersion to the dita element
> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, 2007 April 20 13:33 > To: Yas Etessam > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; Grosso, Paul > Subject: RE: [dita] 12005 supports 12052--adding > DITAArchVersion to the dita element > > Throwing in my own couple of cents on these issues - > > I know that there are points in DITA processing when I have > to know about > the <dita> element. This happens any time I must check one > specific item in > a file. For example, using () to shorten the class attribute > syntax, I have > to look up domains with either /(topic)/@domains or > /dita/(topic)[1]/@domains. Similarly, to pull a title from a > file, I have > to pull from both /(topic)/(title) and > /dita/(topic)[1]/(title). I've found > it odd that <dita> is the only element in any of my > stylesheets which is > referenced by name, so adding @class does make some sense. I'm really > neutral on whether to add it. However, if we add class, I'd > favor making it > FIXED with its own value (something like dita/dita), so that > it's clearly not a topic and not specializable. That sounds like a good idea to me. > > On the separate issue of DITAArchVersion - I have no > objection to adding > that. If buy Paul's arguments about being able to easily identify the > document from this root element. > > Now to toss oil on the fire, I personally think that xml:lang > should also > be available on the <dita> element. I have actually heard > this request from > users, who think it strange to set xml:lang on each of the > topic children > of <dita>. This is a standard XML attribute, so adding it > does not make the > element more meaningful within the DITA architecture. > However, given that > this is such a minor issue, if there are objections I will > not pursue it. > Note that the same arguments could be made for xml:base if > that proposal is accepted and completed for DITA 1.2. I agree with adding xml:lang (and xml:base if we do that) to the dita element too. > > In my view, these attributes do not do anything more than > indicate that > "This is a DITA element" or "This is XML". So, I do not think > there are any > concerns with being on a slippery slope. We only step on that > slope if we > add meaningful DITA-specific attributes such as @platform or > @props. I have > not heard anybody seriously suggest adding these. I agree with just about everything Robert says here--both his arguments and conclusions. paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]