dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Rationale for Filtering Logic in Architecture Spec
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Earley, Jim" <Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 15:04:10 -0400
Hi Jim,
In DITA 1.1 you can set the default
behavior to exclude or include, and also override for particular attributes
as well as particular values.
For example, you could set default to
exclude for everything, but set the default to include for just platform
attribute values.
Michael Priestley
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Earley, Jim"
<Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.com>
05/06/2008 02:15 PM
|
To
| "dita@lists.oasis-open.org"
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [dita] Rationale for Filtering Logic
in Architecture Spec |
|
Dear TC Members,
Pardon my ignorance on this particular subject,
but I'm looking for clarification on the filtering logic for conditional
metadata. To paraphrase the Architecture Spec (and please correct
me if I'm wrong), the logic is to create a conditional processing profile
(DITAVAL file) that explicitly identifies the values to be excluded (otherwise,
the content is included). I'm not concerned with flagging right now.
The way I understand it now, unless you
explicitly declare an exclusion, it will be included. I have several clients
that want the reverse. In other words, the processing model would:
* Include all elements where:
a) there
is a matching value for the identified attribute, OR
b) the identified attribute
is not specified on the element
* Exclude elements that
a) the identified attribute
is set, but there isn't a matching value
Some of my clients make heavy use of conditional
processing, where it makes more sense to specify that the current collection
of topics should be processed for audience A, platform B and product C
rather than explicitly excluding audiences D, E, and F, and so forth.
What I'm wondering is why the specification
only identifies the explicit exclusion model. Wouldn't it be reasonable
to suggest that a DITA processor could implement an explicit inclusion
model also?
Any insight you can provide would be very
helpful.
Best Regards,
Jim Earley
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]