Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [dita] The trademarking tool
Hello,
Just trying to understand which attribute you want to generalize.
For instance, you have a task was generalized to a topic and you want to
go back to a task.
Is this what you are trying to do or am I confused? :-)
Kind regards,
Eric
Eric A. Sirois
Staff Software Developer
DB2 Universal Database - DBA XML Tools Development
IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab
Email:
Phone:(905) 413-2841
Blue Pages (Internal)
"Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public
information and government
transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a
specific product or
platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document
formats.
Dana Spradley
<dana.spradley@or
acle.com> To
Paul Prescod
08/05/2005 11:17 <>
AM cc
Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
Subject
Re: [dita] The trademarking tool
If writing the XSLT 1.0 code for parsing generalized CDATA attributes is a
problem, I would be also be glad to help.
--Dana
Paul Prescod wrote:
Questions about respecialization:
1. Why wouldn?t we write the trademarking tool in
specialization-aware XSLT or Python or Java?
2. If the trademarking tool validates the input and output against
the generalized DTD/schema, isn?t there a danger that the
content does not validate against the specialized one anymore?
When I thought through these issues in the architectural forms
context I came to the conclusion that all document modifications
should be done in the most specialized view. Working with generalized
content is only ?safe? for read-only applications.
That said, I?m not a purist. If someone wants to do something unsafe
in their environment then that?s their call. But by the same token,
if Dana wants to unsafely add specialization-lossy attributes to his
doctype then I don?t think that there is any reason to stop him.
I think that it is inevitable that people WILL add attributes
(including CDATA and URL attributes) because no DITA authoring tool
or validator will complain if they do so. CMS vendors have already
told me that the intend to add attributes for tracking object IDs
(which may be paths or URLs). If respecialization is important then
we need to make it work with this common use case. If it isn?t
important then it shouldn?t stand in the way of the use case.
Would it help if I wrote the XSLT 1.0 code to parse generalized
attributes?
Paul Prescod
Next in thread →
Next in month →