I tend to agree with Paul on this one. I’m having a hard time
seeing how this is doing anything that can’t be done simply by providing
content model parameters for each element type, which can then be tuned on a
per-shell basis to impose whatever constraints are desired.
Cheers,
Eliot
----
W. Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect
Really Strategies, Inc.
512 554 9368
From: Grosso, Paul
[mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:26 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Groups - Proposal 12008 - vocabulary and integration
constraints (HTML) (IssueConstraints12008.html) uploaded
If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds like we are augmenting DTD
constraints with some home brew syntax and semantics that users will need to
learn and understand and implementors will need to implement.
It sounds to me like some of these more complex proposals are just
piling completely new concepts on top of an already complex application.
Am I the only one somewhat concerned with the complexity we are adding to DITA?