This is how I read these
statements: If there's a discrepancy between the DTD/XSD and the spec, then the
DTD/XSD code is not compliant and must be fixed. However, for their products to
work properly with the DTD/XSD, implementers have to be non-compliant in the
same way (or might have to be, depending on the nature of the discrepancy). So
from their point of view for all practical purposes the code trumps the spec
while they wait for "a future release" (not very comforting words!) to resolve
the discrepancy.
/Bruce
From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:17 PM
To: DITA
TC
Subject: RE: [dita] Normative language
specification
Back
in the mists of time (15 December 2009) Kris and I got an
assignment:
K. Eberlin and J. Ogden to
check spec statements on what is normative to ensure that it meets this
condition and suggest any necessary revisions.
There
is this
statement at the start of "Overview of the DITA 1.2
specification":
The DTDs and XSDs – along with the
catalog files – define DITA markup for the DITA vocabulary modules and DITA
document types. While the DTDs and XSDs should define the same DITA elements,
the DTDs are normative if there is a discrepancy.
This may be the only
statement that we need to worry about, but it is hard to be sure. If
anyone knows of others, please speak up.
Assuming that this
is the only statement, I suggest leaving it as it is and where it is. And then
adding a new statement just before the heading “Changes included in DITA 1.2”
in the same “Overview of the DITA 1.2 specification”:
While the written
specification and the DTDs and XSDs should be consistent, the written
specification is normative if there is a discrepancy. And, if there are
discrepancies between different parts of the written specification, the
Language references take precedence over the Architectural
specifications.
My thinking for
suggesting that the Language references take precedence is just that the
Language reference tends to be more specific, while the Architectural
specifications tend to be more general, and it seems better to have the
specific trump the general when there are conflicts. But I’d be OK with having
the Architectural specifications take precedence over the Language references
if someone feels strongly about it. The important thing is to pick an
order of precedence and stick with it.
We might consider
adding something like this at the end too:
If discrepancies are
discovered, please notify the OASIS DITA Technical Committee so that the
differences can be resolved in a future release.
-Jeff
From: Bruce Nevin
(bnevin) [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010
10:40 AM
To: DITA TC
Subject: Re: [dita] Normative
language specification
From
the DITA TC minutes for 15 December:
3. ITEM - Status of language spec and Normative schema.
