Re: [dita] Normative language specification

["Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>]

From the DITA TC minutes for 15 December:

3. ITEM - Status of language spec and Normative schema.

Response from M. McCrae is that the prose description takes precedence over the DTD. See - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200912/msg00035.html. 

As I read Mary's post (below), we could and should specify whatever precedence we think is best.

• If the DTD (or schema, or both) code is "reproduced in the specification"--or, I suppose, if it is included by a performative text reference saying that it is "hereby included"--then "the plain text file" of code "takes precedence".
• But "typically" the prose description in the spec should "be specified" to take precedence over the DTD. (Emphasis added.)
• "It's always helpful to call this out explicitly in the specification itself".
• We should "specify which schema format (if any) is normative or takes precedence" (i.e. DTD vs. schema).

I don't see an OASIS dictum there, I see a range of choices and the recommendation that we make a decision, with some guidance as to what makes sense and what's typical.

 

Seth alluded to "some discussions recently that clearly indicate that DTD technology is insufficient to represent the normative language specifications", with the implication (or anyway my inference) that we consider making schema normative. He asked what was our position on this; SFAIK that question hasn't been clarified. (I can readily understand a view that the schema implementation should be constrained to what DTD can do, at least until tools more adequately and generally support schema.)

 

Jeff asked "is the order of priority:  DTDs, XSDs, Language Spec., Arch. Spec?"

 

(It is odd to have a reference document take normative precedence over a specification. If that is the case, maybe we should treat it as a specification that happens to be used as a reference.)

 

In summary, we should determine the normative order and specify it in the normative section of the spec. Has this been done?

 

    /Bruce

 

---

 Subject: Re: [dita] Normative language specification

• From: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>
• To: "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>
• Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:58:39 -0500

---

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.

Mary

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

Isn’t 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 don’t actually have any true conflicts.

 

    -Jeff

 

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?

 

 

 

-sp

 

--------------------------------------------

seth park

information architect

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

seth.park@freescale.com

512.895.2463