On 7/7/09 8:43 AM, "Ogden, Jeff" <> wrote:
> We can argue if this was or wasn't a "bug" in the approved DITA 1.0 and 1.1
> specifications, but it doesn't really matter since the "fix" being proposed is
> incompatible with what that DITA 1.0 and 1.1 called for. We shouldn't be
> making incompatible changes in a 1.x version and certainly not at this late
> stage in the DITA 1.2 cycle. Something like this requires a full proposal,
> dissuasion, and a vote.
>
> Note that this is not just an issue for implementors. @type is something that
> can be set by authors. And the proposal that is currently on the table would
> make existing documents that use what are perfectly valid values such as "fig"
> or "fn" rather than "topic/fig" or "topic/fn" invalid. We can't do that.
My proposal specifically allows unqualified references to TC-defined types
because those are reliably unique. So it does not make existing values
invalid.
Cheers,
E.
----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email: <mailto:>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
