dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:28:44 -0400
Generalized values go in the props attribute,
and roughly correspond to the syntax already described for the otherprops
attribute.
Paul, I agree that it is simpler to
just ditch the promise (that generalized content can still be processed
in a specialized way) than to deliver on the promise. We've had this discussion
before, and I guess we'll keep having it. The current form of the proposal
already reflects a compromise between your views and mine, as well as input
from others. If you want to reopen the full debate, I guess we will - but
my position hasn't changed, and I consider this a core promise for the
architecture, and worth defending, even if it means delaying the entire
feature.
As a reminder, the rationale for specialized
processing of generalized content has to do with sharing content between
systems and organizations that may include a mix of specialization-aware
and specialization-unaware processing. This is not a hypothetical situation,
it's one we already have in IBM, and it's one of the promises that make
DITA robust enough to deliver cross-enterprise and cross-organization content
sharing.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Paul Prescod"
<paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
04/18/2006 09:53 AM
|
To
| "Esrig, Bruce \(Bruce\)"
<esrig@lucent.com>
|
cc
| <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization |
|
> From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:43 AM
> Subject: RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization
>
> Although it would make it more difficult to support DITA, I
> have a conflicting urge, which is to allow even more
> expressive power ...
>
> props="proglanguage(Java) audience(CompanyA(student)
> CompanyB(teacher))"
But what does that mean? Just the same as:
proglanguage="java" audience="student teacher"
Or
proglanguage="java" CompanyA="student" CompanyB="teacher"
Or something else altogether?
> A compromise would be to put declarations of attributes into
> the props attribute, and then have processors that support
> extensibility look in those attributes for the values.
I think that according to the proposal, declarations go in the domains
attribute.
Paul Prescod
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]