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] Normative language specification

Hi folks,

 There seems to be much confusion around this rule. If the DTD is reproduced in the specification, the plain text file takes precedence. Unless your DTD or schema *is* your spec, the prose description would typically be specified to take precedence over the DTD. It's always helpful to call this out explicitly in the specification itself (that the prose takes precedence over any schema notation) but you'll also want to specify which schema format (if any) is normative or takes precedence.


On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Ogden, Jeff wrote:

Isnít having the DTDs be normative an OASIS rule?  If so, then our position may have been clarified for us already.
So is the order of priority:  DTDs, XSDs, Language Spec., Arch. Spec?  All with the hope that we donít actually have any true conflicts.
From: Park Seth-R01164 [mailto:R01164@freescale.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 1:08 PM
To: dita
Subject: [dita] Normative language specification
I've been spreading rumors that the DTDs are normative when there is a conflict between the lang spec and the DTDs.
There have been some discussions recently that clearly indicate that DTD technology is insufficient to represent the normative language specifications.
Can we clarify our position on this?
seth park
information architect
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

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