I'd like to second Rodolfo's request. I ran into the same problem while
trying to validate docs, and happened to have conflicting catalogs. If
the DTDs and modules were versioned, I would not have run into the conflict.
Best regards,
--Scott
Rodolfo M. Raya wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 16:34 -0500, Robert D Anderson wrote:
>
> We've talked in the past about having version specific public IDs available
> in the catalog, but we would also have the version-agnostic version. The ID
> with no version would always point to the latest set of document types.
> This allows users to update their DTDs without having to update the DOCTYPE
> in their files.
>
> Of course, that particular concern is only a worry for the actual DTD
> files, not for the modules. So, I'm not sure if we want the modules to use
> public IDs with versions. My guess would be no, for consistency... but are
> there any other opinions?
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> IMHO, each DTD and module version should have its own version number
> in the PUBLIC ID. This is the standard procedure that you can find in
> other XML vocabularies, like DocBook.
>
> DTDs and catalogues are different things. Lazy users can play with
> their catalogues and make them point to the latest version without
> updating DOCTYPE declarations in their documents, but people dealing
> with different versions should be able to differentiate them in a
> catalogue.
>
> FWIW, I found the problem while preparing my main catalogue to handle
> DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 at the same time. I expect user of my tools to
> have DITA 1.0 files, DITA 1.1 files and also their own customisations
> of DITA. My programs should be able to resolve the right entities and
> now the entity resolver cannot differentiate between DITA 1.0 and DITA
> 1.1 because the DTDs have the same PUBLIC IDs .
>
> Please keep in mind that not only technical writers deal with DITA
> files. I work with translation tools and for my company it is
> important to handle any official version of DITA, without asking
> translators (our end users) that know nothing about DTDs and
> catalogues to tweak configuration files every time they get a DITA
> document to translate.
>
> I think that this issue needs to be carefully reviewed.
>
> Best regards,
> Rodolfo M. Raya
> Heartsome
> --
> The information in this e-mail is intended strictly for the addressee,
> without prejudices, as a confidential document. Should it reach you,
> not being the addressee, it is not to be made accessible to any other
> unauthorised person or copied, distributed or disclosed to any other
> third party as this would constitute an unlawful act under certain
> circumstances, unless prior approval is given for its transmission.
> The content of this e-mail is solely that of the sender and not
> necessarily that of Heartsome.
>
--
