[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Prototype DITA 1.1 DTDs
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. > --
begin:vcard fn:Scott Hudson n:Hudson;Scott org:Flatirons Solutions;Content Management Services adr:Suite 200;;4747 Table Mesa Drive;Boulder;CO;80305;USA email;internet:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com title:Consultant tel;work:303-542-2146 tel;cell:303-332-1883 note:Knowledge is Power. Sharing is Empowerment. x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://shudson310.blogspot.com version:2.1 end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]