RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















dita message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization




From: Michael Priestley <>
To: "Paul Prescod" <>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:01:51 -0400




I've been corrected re our current use:
- at one point our translation process was planned to use it, but it is
currently using a different approach, and future use of the capability
in the scope of translation is not decided.

Re whether we need a DTD: I think there
are three general use cases here:

- if the content is going to be edited
by somebody changing the structure, they need the fully specialized DTD/schema
- if the content is going to be edited
or modified by a DTD/schema aware process that is not specialization aware,
they need the level of DTD/schema they're aware of
- if the content is going to be edited
or modified by a non-DTD/schema aware process, then they don't need the
DTD/schema at all, they just need normalized output.

I think the middle case is the one I'm
concerned about preserving, and I'll try to come up with some more explicit
use cases, although not in time for this call.

Michael Priestley

IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead



http://dita.xml.org/blog/25





"Paul Prescod"
<> 
04/18/2006 10:46 AM




To
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA


cc
<>,
"Esrig, Bruce \(Bruce\)" <>


Subject
RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization








 


From: Michael Priestley [mailto:]


Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:29 AM

To: Paul Prescod

Cc: ; Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)

Subject: RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization




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. 
I didn't say that we should ditch that promise.
I said that we should ditch the promise that the result of generalization
will always be DTD-valid. A copyright inserting process does not need a
DTD. An editor does need a DTD, but it needs the most specialized DTD (and
the specialized content) if it is to maintain the validity of the content.
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.  
I did not know that you had implemented systems
that do generalization/specialization round tripping. Can you describe
some of them?
 
 Paul Prescod
 







References:

RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization
From: "Paul Prescod" <>






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]