RE: [dita] Use of "claims to be DITA aware": Why I Said It Like That

["Tony Self" <tself@hyperwrite.com>]

Hi Su-Laine (and all)

Your revised text doesn't allow for the differentiation between DITA-aware
and specialisation-aware. Maybe the text could be separated into two pieces,
starting with (respectively):

"Tools that claim to support base content model DITA authoring..."
and
"Tools that claim to support specialised content model DITA authoring..."

Would the requirement that the tool provide access to all elements and
attributes be too restrictive for both "abstraction layer" authoring tools
and very specialised authoring tools (such as an authoring tool designed for
creating reference topics only)? I think it *would* be too restrictive, but
I can't immediately think of another way of expressing the conformance
requirement.

Tony Self



-----Original Message-----
From: Su-Laine Yeo [mailto:su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 11:17 AM
To: dita; tony.self@hyperwrite.com
Subject: RE: [dita] Use of "claims to be DITA aware": Why I Said It Like
That

Here's a revised proposal with tweaks to more directly address "output
as DITA" claims:

"Tools that claim to support DITA authoring, or claim to support
producing output as DITA, must allow authors to create arbitrary valid
documents using the complete base DITA vocabulary, i.e. all DITA topic
and map types, including all base element and attribute types. They must
also must also document procedures to support creating arbitrary valid
documents using arbitrary DITA specializations. Tools that claim partial
support of DITA authoring or partial support of producing output as
DITA, but do not support creation of arbitrary valid documents using the
complete base DITA vocabulary, must document what parts of the
vocabulary are not supported."


Su-Laine