OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [dita] Potential Issue: critdates requires created

G'day all

I agree with Eliot that having <created> as a mandatory element within
<critdates> is problematic, but for a slightly different reason.

Let's say I am moving some legacy content into DITA, and I generally want to
store date metadata where I can. For many documents, I can't find a creation
date, and I don't want to guess. If I don't know the date, then I want to be
able to not have a <created> element, or perhaps leave <created> empty, both
of which to my mind are semantically correct. In this scenario, <created>
could still be mandatory provided an empty element was permitted. However, I
think the optional <created> element is a better path.

Tony Self

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] 
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2009 7:09 AM
To: dita
Subject: [dita] Potential Issue: critdates requires created

I just noticed, in the context of implementing a client-specific
specialization, that critdates requires <created> before you can have any
number of <revised>.

I can understand requiring that <created> occurs at most once and before any
<revised> but it seems unnecessarily constraining to require <created> in
all cases.

In particular, you might not care when something was created (or necessarily
even know when it was created) but care about when it was revised (for
example, because you're revising it but didn't create it).

It is a fully backward-compatible change to made <created> option rather
than required in <critdates>.

Does anyone else agree that requiring <created> is imposing an unnecessary
and inappropriate policy?



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]