[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Stage three: #29 Bookmap update -- Ready for TC consideration
|
Hi all, I have reviewed this proposal and have a few comments (they are general comments not specifically related to this proposal. Excuse me if any of these things have been discussed in my absence from the TC, in which case just refer me to the
minutes or other documentation. Point #1 This proposal does not state why the change is being done. Whatâs the motivation for this change? Whatâs the business case? I can think of a couple, but I think the proposal should mention the business or technical need driving the change.
Then this text could be lifted as-is to the documentation of the standard, which should make life easier for the authors of the eventual standard. Point #2 Why are we concerned about keeping backward compatibility in a major release? The TC has a huge, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix and improve things that we could not do with any minor release of the standard. If there is a better
way to achieve the desired outcome, I suggest we do it now and document any backward incompatibility we introduce. Iâm concerned about making the DTD files more complex simply for the sake of backwards compatibility when weâre doing a major release. Point #3 Point #2 is a good Segway into this concern. The standard says the XSDs are the normative standard, but our proposals talk about DTDs almost exclusively. All of our content model discussions are based on how to achieve the outcome via DTDs.
If the XSD schema is normative, letâs focus our discussion on the XSD implementation and optimize that. At this time, the XSDs are essentially reverse-engineered DTDs, and donât take full opportunity of XSD functionality. For DITA 2.0 I feel strongly we should
re-architect the XSDs to fully embrace the schema functionality and best practices. Many vendors have raised this concern with me, so itâs not just me. <duck as Robert A throws a large heavy object in my direction/> Seriously, Iâm not undermining the huge effort Robert and others put into the XSDs, I really do appreciate it. What Iâm suggesting is we take on an XSD re-architecture at this time before itâs too late. Point #4 The formatting of figure titles is confusing. I keep thinking the figure title is a figure caption referring to the code sample above, due to the lack of space above the title and huge space below. The figure title actually refers to the
figure below the title. I know this is OASIS style, but please, please letâs fix it!! Besides these gripes, I really like this proposal and see how it will make life easier for many users. I think weâd use it eventually at Mastercard (my current client at Precision Content). This is a very well-written proposal. Job well done! Gershon From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com> This proposal has been reviewed by:
The PDF is attached; the DITA source is available at
http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/dita/trunk/DITA-2.0/stage-3/Issue-29-bookmap-update.dita -- |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]