[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Normative language specification
On 12/1/09 12:07 PM, "Park Seth-R01164" <R01164@freescale.com> wrote: > I've been spreading rumors that the DTDs are normative when there is a > conflict between the lang spec and the DTDs. > > There have been some discussions recently that clearly indicate that DTD > technology is insufficient to represent the normative language > specifications. > > Can we clarify our position on this? I think we have to make it clear that when we say "conflict" we mean "incompatible content model rules". In particular, if the prose says "a then b" and the DTD says "b, a", the DTD is the authority. But if the prose says, as in the case of <section>, "a section has an optional title" where the DTD must, by necessity, say title*, the prose is the authority (because a single title is consistent with title*). That is, the prose may define additional constraints on the content models defined by the DTD when the DTD is incapable of defining those constraints directly. Note also that the spec says that when there is an inconsistency between the DTD and the XSD, the DTD is taken as the authority. Cheers, Eliot -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 610.631.6770 www.reallysi.com www.rsuitecms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]