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] Conformance and interoperability

I'm more comfortable with "should" rather than "must" here. 

My problem with "must" for the design patterns, is that the spec doesn't seem to be specific enough about the details of the design patterns to make them such a strong requirement.  

Has this changed in the DITA 1.2 drafts?

And while "should" isn't a strong as "must" it is still pretty strong and much stronger than other options such as "may".


-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
Sent: Tue 7/7/2009 7:31 AM
To: Michael Priestley; Dana Spradley
Cc: dita
Subject: Re: [dita] Conformance and interoperability
On 7/6/09 6:26 PM, "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure about the should vs must being a typo. I think it's currently
> must, and on purpose.

Doh! You're right--I was confusing the requirement to have documents with
DTDs or schemas (should) with the design pattern (must).

My apologies for any confusion. Too many hours spent reviewing/writing too
many pages of this spec.



Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com> 

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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