[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Article for "DITA elements in strange places" action
I edited this topic and added it to SVN. I don't know whether it potentially belongs in the non-normative appendix or would be good fodder for a future FAQ or tutorial.
Here's HTML output of the current topic:
Quirks and traits of the DITA specialization architecture
Because DITA is an extensible content architecture, its content models sometimes exhibit quirky behavior.
Whenever a new element type is specialized from an
existing element type, it needs to be inserted into the content
model in a controlled way so that it is valid in its new
contexts. This is done by a step in the specialization design
pattern called vocabulary substitution.
Specialization thus can cause an expansion of the number of element types. This can be managed by limiting the declared content models of specialized elements or be using constraints to make the original element now longer availabe.
Some elements in the DITA base, for example,
Rigorous identification of archetypes also leads to a reduction of tags. For example, most inline phrases are basically one of a few fundamental types:
The more semantically significant derivations of
these basic types have been moved into optional modules. The
result is that the base topic document type without domains has
fewer body elements than HTML. Remaining phrase level elements
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 11/4/2014 9:57 AM, Don R. Day wrote:
I found a previous reply on dita-users that I had written about observed quirks in DITA; I dusted this off and recognized that it is actually sort of a mini-FAQ about several related features of the specialization architecture. It was written prior to the introduction of constraints, and so I have added a draft-comment for the TC to help with that wording about implications for tag count. If we could review this today,