[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] 12005 supports 12052--adding DITAArchVersion to the ditaelement
Isn't dita the only element that should be
reference by name - since it isn't specializable via a class attribute? And couldn't its topic children be in different languages? Does the dita element have any strings in languages of its own? I'd expect you'd process dita children using an xsl:if test="dita", xsl:for-each select="dita/*"..., or something like that. --Dana Grosso, Paul wrote: -----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]