I don't personally feel confident that there are NO valid reasons to use format="htm". For example - since there was no previous prohibition on using "htm" - companies today could have used explicit values of format="htm" in their maps, potentially with special processing based on that value. This would make sense if they use ".htm" as the extension for all html files anyway. For that reason, I think I would lean towards SHOULD.
Another option would be to rephrase it such that applications SHOULD or MUST treat format="htm" and format="html" as equivalent, which I think would have the same effect.
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
Kristen James Eberlein ---03/17/2014 09:07:28---Keep in mind the RFC-2119 meanings of the normative terms: MUST This word, or the terms "required"
From: Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org,
Date: 03/17/2014 09:07
Subject: Re: [dita] Question about default for @format when linking to file.htm
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Keep in mind the RFC-2119 meanings of the normative terms:
MUST
- This word, or the terms "required" or "shall", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
- This word, or the adjective "recommended", means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 3/17/2014 7:56 AM, Bob Thomas wrote:
- Hi Chris,
I prefer "must", but I don't feel strongly about it.
Best Regards,
Bob Thomas
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote:
- Yes, .htm should mean .html. I'm undecided about must vs. should on this one, but leaning must.
Best,
Chris
On Mar 13, 2014, at 6:24 PM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi,
I see a draft comment in the write up for proposal 13107 (assume a default value for @format based on the extension of the linked resource. Bob's comment states:
This description needs to specify that a ".htm" extension MUST imply format value "html".
That's a slight change from the approved proposal, so I wanted to send to the TC before making that change.
1. Is that correct - an extension of "htm" means format="html" (rather than format="htm")?
2. Is this something that we want to list as MUST with a reference to the RFC terminology?
Thanks -
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
--
Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php