Yes, I think specific examples are good.
Here are some examples off the top of my head for overriding existing core
behaviors:
- conref: override current behavior
to limit reuse to a particular set of targets (eg only allow reuse from
topics in a "/reuse" subdirectory)
- map-based linking: create breadcrumb
links (to all ancestors) instead of just parent links
- link resolution: pull the shortdesc
for APIRef topics from their syntax as well as their shortdesc
Some of the overrides could be driven
by specializations, some could just be driven by business process requirements.
Michael Priestley
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Ogden, Jeff"
<>
10/02/2007 02:30 PM
To
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
<>
Subject
RE: [dita] MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, some
key words from RFC 2119
Michael wrote:
> In other words, all behavior, core and
specialized, is overrideable.
This is the subject of the
discussion (item #4 from my previous note) that we plan to have. The fundamental
question that we need to answer is, is all behavior overrideable, that
is, is everything either RECOMMENDED or OPTIONAL, or are some things truly
REQUIRED?
Or stated another way, the
core as a whole is REQUIRED, but individual items within the core may be
REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL with respect to specializations.
This doesn’t really get interesting
until we get down to specific cases and we have to figure out when to use
MUST / REQUIRED, SHOULD / RECOMMENDED, and MAY / OPTIONAL
-Jeff
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:15 PM
To: Ogden, Jeff
Cc:
Subject: Re: [dita] MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, some key words from RFC
2119
Looks good, Jeff - with the caveat though that even though the core is
MUST and the specializations are RECOMMENDED or OPTIONAL, a specialization
may introduce behavior that overrides the core.
In other words, all behavior, core and specialized, is overrideable.
Michael Priestley
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Ogden, Jeff"
<>
10/02/2007 02:08 PM
To
<>
cc
Subject
[dita] MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, some key
words from RFC 2119
Included below are some words taken from RFC 2119 on “Key words for use
in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels". I think we are going to need
to use this or a similar approach in the DITA standard.
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL",
mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean
that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean
that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED"
mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when
the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.
5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that
an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item
because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels
that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same
item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST
be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality.
In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature
the
option provides.)
To see the full RFC (its short), see: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt?number=2119
Note that as we split the DITA Specification into multiple specifications,
that an entire specification may be REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL,
but within the individual specifications there will be items that are REQUIRED,
RECOMMENDED or which are OPTIONAL.
So, if I take the summary from Michael’s recent note:
-
everyone needs to support the core;
-
specialized support (beyond core
defaults) for the specialized parts of the spec are optional but encouraged,
and should represent an established user community;
-
specialized support (beyond core
defaults or standard specialization defaults) for non-standardized user
specializations are up to the user or their partners to provide
I can rewrite it using the RFC terms as follows:
-
everyone MUST support the core;
-
specialized support (beyond core
defaults) for the specialized parts of the spec are RECOMMENDED, and MUST
represent an established user community;
-
specialized support (beyond core
defaults or standard specialization defaults) for non-standardized user
specializations is OPTIONAL and up to the user or their partners to provide.
Michael, how did I do?
-Jeff
