OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [dita] Question about domains attribute

The @domains value "(map map)" means a map type of "map", e.g., the base
map module, with no domains.

The domains contributions are implicit in the existence of each map or
topic type, including the base types, e.g., (map map), (map bookmap),
(topic topic), (topic concept), etc.

With the RNG is the first opportunity to make them more explicit. For DITA
1.2 we could have (and should have) added domains contribution entities
for each of the map and topic types but obviously it never occurred to us.

For 1.3 this should be corrected.


Eliot Kimber, Owner
Contrext, LLC

On 10/3/14, 3:30 PM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>OK - to try and narrow down into specific cases:
>In DITA 1.1, if I specialize map and add no domains, what should @domains
>be? Is the empty string correct?
>In DITA 1.3, for a map with no specializations or constraints, I now see
>that you've got the "(map map)" token in the RNG (not in the DTD, which
>is what I originally checked). I assume those were added with a 1.3
>proposal, but I do not remember seeing them previously - I thought tokens
>were only added for specializations. To me, a value of (map map) means
>"map specialized from map", so it seems ... odd. If anything, I'd have
>expected just (map) as the token.
>Robert D Anderson
>IBM Authoring Tools Development
>Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
>Eliot Kimber ---10/03/2014 15:10:10---Yes, @domains without structural
>types is valid but incomplete. The map and topic modules have domai
>From:	Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>
>To:	Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
>Cc:	DITA TC <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Date:	10/03/2014 15:10
>Subject:	Re: [dita] Question about domains attribute
>Sent by:	<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
>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.
>Eliot Kimber, Owner
>Contrext, LLC
>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
>>> 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
>>> types as well as domains, so the minimum @domains value should be
>>> topic)" or "(map map)" in the case where you have no domains
>>> 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
>>> >any domains. I've declared the attribute for my root element, but in
>>> >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
>>> >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
>>> >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
>>> >either.
>>> >
>>> >So - what is the correct value for @domains in a document type shell
>>> >does not use any domains?
>>> >
>>> >Robert D Anderson
>>> >IBM Authoring Tools Development
>>> >Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
>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:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]