Versioning and naming is a complex issue
that
could burn lots of cycles. I hope we can
avoid
that at least at this time.
Putting the version into the public
identifier
is a good idea.
Not fooling with the namespace (as Eliot
suggests)
is also a good idea.
Putting the version number into the (unpathed)
file
name is a bad idea. It will make maintenance of
the
various files quite difficult. Instead, the
entire
inter-related "tree" of dtd/schema files should
all
maintain the same names, and then the root of
the
tree should change for a different version.
This
is how docbook does it; it's how the IBM
toolkit
does it (for the most part); it's how most
software
management systems (e.g., Clearcase) do
it.
paul
From: Chris Wong [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, 2005 September 01 15:01
To: DITA-TC
(E-mail)
Subject: [dita] Catalogs: embedding version
numbers
DITA includes OASIS
catalogs as part of the standard. I propose for DITA 1.1 we somehow embed the
version number in the catalogs so possibly incompatible DTDs from pre-1.0, 1.0
and 1.1 can coexist. Right now, pre-1.0 and 1.0 can coexist in the same
catalog because their public IDs differ, most notably in the change of owner
from IBM to OASIS. I'd like to continue this pattern by adding version numbers
to the DITA 1.1 DTD files' public IDs. For example, concept.dtd from all three
versions can sit in the same catalog like:
<public
publicId="-//IBM//DTD DITA Concept//EN"
uri="toolkit-1.3.2/concept.dtd"/>
<public
publicId="-//OASIS//DTD DITA Concept//EN"
uri="1.0/concept.dtd"/>
<public
publicId="-//OASIS//DTD DITA Concept 1.1//EN"
uri="1.1/concept.dtd"/>
We might want to embed
the version number in the filename too, like concept11.dtd. This should bring
us in line with other models like SVG.
Chris
