Rev 3 Comments: Implementation file naming conventions(fileext.dita)

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

The subject topic has bounced around a bit and there are comments asking if
we should add some conventions (.dtd) and remove others (.xsl).

Now that I think about it more I'm not sure this topic is appropriate at
all. 

To the degree DITA requires certain names they are specified in the coding
requirements section (e.g., .mod, .ent, .dec, etc.). Anything not specified
there is not, by definition, normative (unless we decide or have decided
that .dita and .ditamap are normative and at least shoulds if not musts).

This section also conflates content file naming conventions (.dita,
.ditamap), document type implementation conventions (required by module
implement requirements), and processing technology conventions (.xsl, etc.).

We shouldn't be saying anything about processing technology
conventions--that is entirely outside the scope of the DITA spec.

We should probably discuss content file naming conventions in the overview
section or in the section on DITA markup.

Naming conventions for document type components should probably be
summarized in the coding requirements sections (which is where this
troublesome topic currently lives).

Given this analysis I would like to get the TC's concensus on what to do.

Cheers,

Eliot

-- 
Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect
"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
Main: 610.631.6770
www.reallysi.com
www.rsuitecms.com