Re: [dita] Question about default for @format when linking to file.htm

I don't personally feel confident that there are NO valid reasons to use format="htm". For example - since there was no previous prohibition on using "htm" - companies today could have used explicit values of format="htm" in their maps, potentially with special processing based on that value. This would make sense if they use ".htm" as the extension for all html files anyway. For that reason, I think I would lean towards SHOULD.

Another option would be to rephrase it such that applications SHOULD or MUST treat format="htm" and format="html" as equivalent, which I think would have the same effect.

Robert D Anderson

IBM Authoring Tools Development

Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)

Kristen James Eberlein ---03/17/2014 09:07:28---Keep in mind the RFC-2119 meanings of the normative terms:  MUST This word, or the terms "required"

From:	Kristen James Eberlein <>

To:	, 

Date:	03/17/2014 09:07

Subject:	Re: [dita] Question about default for @format when linking to file.htm

Sent by:	<>

Keep in mind the RFC-2119 meanings of the normative terms:

MUST
This word, or the terms "required" or "shall", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. 
SHOULD 
This word, or the adjective "recommended", means 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. 

Best,

Kris

Kristen James Eberlein

Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting

www.eberleinconsulting.com

+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)

On 3/17/2014 7:56 AM, Bob Thomas wrote:
Hi Chris, 

I prefer "must", but I don't feel strongly about it.

Best Regards,

Bob Thomas

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Chris Nitchie <> wrote:
Yes, .htm should mean .html. I'm undecided about must vs. should on this one, but leaning must.

Best, 

Chris

On Mar 13, 2014, at 6:24 PM, "Robert D Anderson" <> wrote:

Hi,

I see a draft comment in the write up for proposal 13107 (assume a default value for @format based on the extension of the linked resource. Bob's comment states:

This description needs to specify that a ".htm" extension MUST imply format value "html".

That's a slight change from the approved proposal, so I wanted to send to the TC before making that change.

1. Is that correct - an extension of "htm" means format="html" (rather than format="htm")?

2. Is this something that we want to list as MUST with a reference to the RFC terminology?

Thanks -

Robert D Anderson

IBM Authoring Tools Development

Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)

-- 

Bob Thomas 

+1 720 201 8260

Skype: bob.thomas.colorado

Instant messaging: Gmail chat () or Skype

Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php