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] Un-versioned URNs/public IDs with DITA 2.0

I wonder if rather than saying "no unversioned URNs" that we use a distinct base name for DITA 2, so the "unversioned" identifier would be:

"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2 Task//EN"

And the versioned identifiers would be:

"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2.0 Task//EN"

"-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2.x Task//EN"

That would keep the DITA 2 identifiers from conflicting with 1.x identifiers but maintain the "unversioned/versioned" distinction.



Eliot Kimber

ïOn 9/11/18, 11:07 AM, "Chris Nitchie" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote:

    In todayâs meeting and our discussion about nesting steps and removing sub-steps, it occurred to me that with all these breaking changes, we should probably stop providing un-versioned public IDs and URNs in DITA 2.0 (e.g. "-//OASIS//DTD DITA Task//EN"). Otherwise, DITA 2.0-compliant toolchains encountering a document with an unversioned public ID or schema reference will be unable to determine which grammar files to use to parse and validate. I suggest that all catalogs we provide with the grammar files include 2.0 as well as 2.x designations, but not unversioned designations. That way, an un-versioned identifier will refer to the 1.3 grammars, and a reference to 2.x can be used for the most-recent post-2.0 grammar files, retaining the flexibility while avoiding the ambiguity.
    I don't think this probably rises to the level of a full DITA 2.0 proposal, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the TC so it doesn't slip through the cracks.

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