[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Re: Strawman Draft of General Conformance Specification
Some comments below.
-Jeff
From:
Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com [mailto:Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com]
At the end of the day I think the test for what is a conforming DITA-aware processor is can it use, create, or modify conforming DITA documents using conforming DITA document types and does the result also conform. I think we are limited to defining what is or isn’t conforming in order to ensure interoperability. I don’t see how we can go beyond this to use the DITA specification to tell implementers what features they need to support beyond a minimum sub-set required to provide interoperability. We can tell implementers what the required results are, but we can’t tell them how to achieve those results. We certainly can’t define what is or isn’t considered good or poor support.
What I think we can do is require implementers that claim to be DITA conforming to state (i) which features they have implemented (or if it is easier, which features they haven’t implemented), (ii) that they have implemented all of the features that are REQUIRED for a particular category of implementation, (iii) that all features that are included are implemented according to the requirements given in the DITA specifications, and (iv) what version of the DITA specification is implemented.
Will that do enough of what you are after?
I don’t think that this is something that should be or really can be forbidden by the DITA specifications. It seems more like something that would cause you and most everyone else to choose a different editor.
Again I don’t know how or even if we should require something like this in the face of all possible “extra” features. I think we can encourage more full disclosure, so that people know what they are and aren’t getting.
I think this will be somewhat better when detailed conformance retirement information is added throughout the DITA specification.
I think there is a distinction between a DITA-aware Information Management System and an Information Management System that can be used with DITA, but which is not DITA-aware. At some point this comes down to what features are and are not implemented by a processor.
There isn’t such a category now. We could add one or we could expand the existing source to source transformer category to include non-DITA to DITA source transformers. I guess the question we need to answer is are there going to be any requirements that are specific to the non-DITA to DITA transformers or will the same requirements apply as apply for DITA to DITA source transformers?
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]