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] Default values for @domains within specializations

Sounds reasonable to me. I am in favor of removing this language.

Thanks and best regards,

Scott Hudson
Senior Consultant
Comtech Services Inc.

From: Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 3:16 PM
To: DITA TC <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita] Default values for @domains within specializations

In going through the coding requirements for DTDs, Kris found a requirement from 1.2 (and earlier) that we think should be removed. However, it involves normative language, so we want to run it by the TC first.

When coding structural specializations, the spec states that modules must define the included-domains parameter entity. This is usually empty but in some cases must have a meaningful default. See the (very short) rules and examples here:

Why is this meaningless? Every specialization, whether topic or map, structural or domain, builds on either the core topic module or the core map module. Both of those modules define the included-domains entity:
<!ENTITY included-domains

When building a DTD, specialized modules must come after more general modules -- so every module comes after either topic or map. Within a DTD, the first definition wins. Thus, the required definition in a specialized module can never have any effect - the first definition from topic.mod or map.mod always wins.

I think the straightforward change is to just remove this language, but as with other normative rules, the TC should sign off or quietly nod in approval before it goes away.

Related: these entities were present in all of the 1.2 modules except the SubjectScheme map specialization. Each of the declarations was empty, and had no effect. They are not in the 1.3 modules we have in SVN now. Last year when I was comparing the output of Eliot's RNG->DTD tool with the actual shipped 1.2, I noted that extra definitions of the entity were missing, and I couldn't figure out why. This is why - the tool (reasonably) does not add the meaningless extra definition.

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]