[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: 13056 and Attribute Domains
For the first question - no, this is not designed to allow you to create legal specializations of product, audience, etc. Reasoning is: @props is the only one designated for specialization, and is set up in the DTD/XSD to allow you to extend it with domain modules. Processors are able to detect specialized attributes based off of the @domains value on the topic, which are required as part of the attribute specialization process. The original four do not have any way to trace back to @props, which is why they can't fall in the specialization path - to put them in that path would require small but backwards incompatible changes to document types. So I believe the choices if we want to allow extension are: 1) Allow this grouping mechanism, but do not allow specialization 2) Make them into specializable attributes -- giving us @base, @props, @product, @platform, @audience, and @otherprops as independent, specializable attributes. Apart from making me feel generally uncomfortable, option #2 there would not meet Su-Laine's original goal of allowing some form of extension without DTD/XSD updates. For the second question - that should already be the case, though technically the specification only says that applications "should" support both the general and specialized forms: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/archSpec/attributegeneralize.html The only real difference with support for generalized forms here and in @props is that this proposal does not necessitate a new @domains token. So, there is no way to connect product="database(a b)" to an actual @database attribute. Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/) From: "Chris Nitchie" <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> To: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>, Date: 03/05/2013 12:15 Subject: 13056 and Attribute Domains Robert, With these changes, could you create an attribute domain for a new attribute based on product, audience, etc.? Or would this strictly be a mechanism for grouping values in the standard conditional processing attributes? Could you specify groupings in other attributes specialized from @props? If so, would that necessitate support for nested groupings in the generalized form? Chris Chris Nitchie (Embedded image moved to Oberon Technologies, Inc. file: pic21570.jpg) 2640 Wildwood Trail Description: email_sig Saline, MI 48176 Main: 734.666.0400 Ext. 503 Direct: 734.330.2978 Email: chris.nitchie@oberontech.com www.oberontech.com
Attachment:
pic21570.jpg
Description: JPEG image
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]