Bruce,
Are you suggesting that we have a different precedence for DITA
1.2 or just making an observation?
-Jeff
From: Bruce Nevin
(bnevin) [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:49 PM
To: Ogden, Jeff; DITA TC
Subject: RE: [dita] Normative language specification
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.
