I think that sounds fine as a way to resolve this for 1.3.
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)
Kristen James Eberlein ---10/15/2014 18:35:05---After a lot of reading and re-reading of the spec topics, the only thing that is clear to me is tha
From: Kristen James Eberlein <>
To: DITA TC <>
Date: 10/15/2014 18:35
Subject: [dita] Suggested resolution for the @domains attribute kerfluffle
Sent by: <>
After a lot of reading and re-reading of the spec topics, the only thing
that is clear to me is that --like many DITA 1.2 items -- there is a
lack of clarity as to how @domains entries should be defined for
structural specializations.
To move forward with the least impact and disruption, I suggest that the
specification be updated to explicitly allow the (topic) and (map)
tokens as a way to indicate the base DITA vocabulary for a specific
document type shell.
I do not think that we should use normative language in the update. We
cannot use a MUST statement, and I do not think that even a SHOULD
statement is warranted, because it is of little enough practical value
that I don't think there is any benefit in updating 1.1 or 1.2 compliant
shells to add this new token.
However, this update will offer a solution to the issue that Robert
originally raised of a document-type shell that does not have any
domains integrated.
--
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
