RE: [dita] Groups - Proposal 12008 - vocabulary and integration constraints (HTML) (IssueConstraints12008.html) uploaded

["Tony Self" <tself@hyperwrite.com>]

Dear TC

It might be helpful to clarify whether constraints are intended for the editing of content or the processing of content. From an editing point of view, constraints would have tremendous utility. From a processing point of view, ie, if you created constraint-set specific processors, constraints could be a total pain.

Deborah's proposed feature (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/25027/IssueConstraints12008.html) summarised the need as "the ability to restrict element content without changing the semantics or PROCESSING EXPECTATIONS" (my emphasis).

If processing doesn't come into it, the issue is just about constraints for editing.

Regards

Tony Self
HyperWrite Pty Ltd
http://www.hyperwrite.com/


 

________________________________

From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2007 5:45 AM
To: Grosso, Paul
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Groups - Proposal 12008 - vocabulary and integration constraints (HTML) (IssueConstraints12008.html) uploaded



So I can better understand your position: 

- are you advocating that specializers should simply be unable to eg make shortdesc required without specialization, or replace generic elements with more specialized ones, or include only some elements from a domain? 

- or are you advocating that they should be able to, and we simply accept that constraints will not be recognized by conref or other dita-aware processes, so if group A imposes a constraint on their own content there is no way for them to check whether that same constraint has been applied to the content they want to reuse without human intervention? 

Michael Priestley
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25