> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, 2007 April 20 13:33
> To: Yas Etessam
> Cc: ; Grosso, Paul
> Subject: RE: [dita] 12005 supports 12052--adding
> DITAArchVersion to the dita element
>
> Throwing in my own couple of cents on these issues -
>
> I know that there are points in DITA processing when I have
> to know about
> the <dita> element. This happens any time I must check one
> specific item in
> a file. For example, using () to shorten the class attribute
> syntax, I have
> to look up domains with either /(topic)/@domains or
> /dita/(topic)[1]/@domains. Similarly, to pull a title from a
> file, I have
> to pull from both /(topic)/(title) and
> /dita/(topic)[1]/(title). I've found
> it odd that <dita> is the only element in any of my
> stylesheets which is
> referenced by name, so adding @class does make some sense. I'm really
> neutral on whether to add it. However, if we add class, I'd
> favor making it
> FIXED with its own value (something like dita/dita), so that
> it's clearly not a topic and not specializable.
That sounds like a good idea to me.
>
> On the separate issue of DITAArchVersion - I have no
> objection to adding
> that. If buy Paul's arguments about being able to easily identify the
> document from this root element.
>
> Now to toss oil on the fire, I personally think that xml:lang
> should also
> be available on the <dita> element. I have actually heard
> this request from
> users, who think it strange to set xml:lang on each of the
> topic children
> of <dita>. This is a standard XML attribute, so adding it
> does not make the
> element more meaningful within the DITA architecture.
> However, given that
> this is such a minor issue, if there are objections I will
> not pursue it.
> Note that the same arguments could be made for xml:base if
> that proposal is accepted and completed for DITA 1.2.
I agree with adding xml:lang (and xml:base if we do that)
to the dita element too.
>
> In my view, these attributes do not do anything more than
> indicate that
> "This is a DITA element" or "This is XML". So, I do not think
> there are any
> concerns with being on a slippery slope. We only step on that
> slope if we
> add meaningful DITA-specific attributes such as @platform or
> @props. I have
> not heard anybody seriously suggest adding these.
I agree with just about everything Robert says here--both his
arguments and conclusions.
paul
