[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Un-versioned URNs/public IDs with DITA 2.0
I wonder if rather than saying "no unversioned URNs" that we use a distinct base name for DITA 2, so the "unversioned" identifier would be: "-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2 Task//EN" And the versioned identifiers would be: "-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2.0 Task//EN" "-//OASIS//DTD DITA 2.x Task//EN" That would keep the DITA 2 identifiers from conflicting with 1.x identifiers but maintain the "unversioned/versioned" distinction. Cheers, E. -- Eliot Kimber http://contrext.com ïOn 9/11/18, 11:07 AM, "Chris Nitchie" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote: In todayâs meeting and our discussion about nesting steps and removing sub-steps, it occurred to me that with all these breaking changes, we should probably stop providing un-versioned public IDs and URNs in DITA 2.0 (e.g. "-//OASIS//DTD DITA Task//EN"). Otherwise, DITA 2.0-compliant toolchains encountering a document with an unversioned public ID or schema reference will be unable to determine which grammar files to use to parse and validate. I suggest that all catalogs we provide with the grammar files include 2.0 as well as 2.x designations, but not unversioned designations. That way, an un-versioned identifier will refer to the 1.3 grammars, and a reference to 2.x can be used for the most-recent post-2.0 grammar files, retaining the flexibility while avoiding the ambiguity. I don't think this probably rises to the level of a full DITA 2.0 proposal, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the TC so it doesn't slip through the cracks. Chris
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]