[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Question about domains attribute
Yes, @domains without structural types is valid but incomplete. The map and topic modules have domains contributions defined in the RNG modules but they're not being put into the generated DTDs: that's definitely a bug that I will fix--they should be there for completeness. For the statement "DITA document types are defined via the @domains attribute" to be true, the @domains value must list structural types in addition to @domains. Cheers, E. ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 10/3/14, 2:52 PM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote: >Ah, of course. That said - I didn't think that the base topic or map had >domain tokens? They do not appear in the DITA 1.3 document types (I'm >looking at base topic and base map, which use the fewest domains). So if >I want a new shell for base map -- what value is legal or required for >@domains in DITA 1.* on the <map> element, when using no specializaations >of any kind, and using no constraints? > >For the case that was causing me trouble - the structural specialization >and shell DTD were created back in the days of DITA 1.1, so we did not >have a structural domain token. I can create that token now and bypass >the error. Still, it's not an absolute requirement - as you say, it's >strongly urged, but not a MUST for exactly this reason - I believe my >shell DTD was valid in DITA 1.1, and should remain valid in 1.2 and 1.3. > >Robert D Anderson >IBM Authoring Tools Development >Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/) > >Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com> wrote on 10/03/2014 14:33:02: > >> From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com> >> To: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, DITA TC >><dita@lists.oasis-open.org> >> Date: 10/03/2014 14:33 >> Subject: Re: [dita] Question about domains attribute >> >> Starting with DITA 1.2 we strongly urged @domains to list all structural >> types as well as domains, so the minimum @domains value should be >>"(topic >> topic)" or "(map map)" in the case where you have no domains integrated. >> >> Cheers, >> >> E. >> ————— >> Eliot Kimber, Owner >> Contrext, LLC >> http://contrext.com >> >> >> >> >> On 10/3/14, 2:21 PM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> >The DITA spec is pretty clear that structural specializations need to >> >declare @domains on the root element (specialization of map or topic), >> >and that this attribute must describe the domains used in a given >> >document type shell. The spec says of this attribute: "...the @domains >> >attribute, whose value is a sequence of parenthesized module ancestry >> >specifications. " >> >http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/archSpec/domainsatt.html >> > >> >The question is - what about if I have a document type shell with no >> >domains? I've got a very simple map specialization - mostly a title, >> >metadata, and very limited references to other maps. There is no need >>for >> >any domains. I've declared the attribute for my root element, but in my >> >DTD file the attribute is set to the empty string (""). This would not >> >appear to comply with the language above, because the empty string is >>not >> >a sequence of parenthesized modules. Is it correct to set this to the >> >empty string? I've got a tool that reports an error here because >>@domains >> >does not match the current definition. I can get around the error by >> >setting a value like "none" or "(none)" but those clearly do not comply >> >either. >> > >> >So - what is the correct value for @domains in a document type shell >>that >> >does not use any domains? >> > >> >Robert D Anderson >> >IBM Authoring Tools Development >> >Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/) >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]