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] XML Data type in spec: keep or remove?


I might be inclined to keep it only in occurrences (if there are any) where the actual nature of the data type is more restrictive than is already obvious from the description of the values.

 

Under this guideline, it would clearly be gone from the example linked below.

 

mag

 

 

From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Robert D Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:21 PM
To: DITA TC
Subject: Re: [dita] XML Data type in spec: keep or remove?

 

To clarify, the example I gave was for <revised>, not for <resourceid>. Here is a link to the comment thread in DITAWeb:
https://ditaweb.com/oasis-dita/#/00074601-DA$00074157-DB$%3Crevised%3E

Sorry for the confusion,

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://www.dita-ot.org/)

Inactive hide details for Robert D Anderson---12/16/2014 15:17:59---Close readers of the 1.3 draft should have noticed that almRobert D Anderson---12/16/2014 15:17:59---Close readers of the 1.3 draft should have noticed that almost every attribute definition includes i

From: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
To: DITA TC <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 12/16/2014 15:17
Subject: [dita] XML Data type in spec: keep or remove?
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>





Close readers of the 1.3 draft should have noticed that almost every attribute definition includes information about the XML data type for that attribute. For example, "This attribute is defined with the XML Data Type CDATA."

The data type is really only there because it was there in the attribute tables from older versions of the spec. For <resourceid> in particular, I had a draft comment asking if this was useful - we state that the date attributes use the format YYYY-MM-DD, but then note that the attribute is CDATA. This prompted the following comment exchange:

Eliot Kimber: Specifying the DTD data type is not that interesting in general, I think. It's available in the grammars and not going to be of much interest to authors. Implementors know where to look.
Robert Anderson: I agree. It was preserved because it was in all previous versions (as part of the attribute tables). I felt some resistence to removing it, which is why it was kept in. Referring to TC to get a position.


I can't remember if anybody really resisted removing this, or if I imagined it. So at this point, would anybody object to removing the "this is defined with XML data type XXXX" comments unless they are explicitly needed to differentiate something, as in an ID with type ID vs an ID with type CDATA?

Thanks,

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (
http://www.dita-ot.org/)



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