dita — archive

Re: [dita] DITA Proposed Feature: Extensibility of DITA through new attributes

From: Eliot Kimber
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:20:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















dita message






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

--

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








Subject: Re: [dita] DITA Proposed Feature: Extensibility of DITA through new	attributes




From: Eliot Kimber <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:22:10 -0500






Paul Prescod wrote:
>>Within an enterprise you may want to disallow further 
>>specialization of a set of types. That is, one key benefit of 
>>specialization is that it can be *controlled*. Thus it 
>>follows that you should have the option of disallowing it, 
>>as well as allowing it.
> 
> 
> Would you buy the argument that a type should be able to control the
> addition of other attributes if and only if the type can control other
> aspects of specialization? E.g. if a type can declare that it is or is
> not specializable or allows for content model tightening? Do you agree
> that controlling attribute specialization is just a small part of it? If
> so, then I would defer it until the whole issue of specialization
> control is covered holistically.

Seems reasonable to me.

> 
> We could make that rule globally. Or we could give specializers control
> over it as part of the specialization control issue. I would say that
> attributes belong to the same namespace/domain as the elements they are
> on unless they use a namespace prefix explicitly.

Hmm, I thought that the Namespace spec didn't justify this behavior but 
I guess it does. This is from 6.2 Namespace Defaulting, in the XML Names 
1.1 spec:

"Default namespace declarations do not apply directly to attribute 
names; *the interpretation of unprefixed attributes is determined by the 
  element on which they appear.*" [Emphasis mine]

So I think it would be reasonable for DITA to define the processing 
implications of unqualified attributes.

I would also prefer a rule that encourages the qualifying of 
application-specific attributes.

Cheers,

Eliot

-- 
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
9390 Research Blvd, #410
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 372-8155

[email protected]
www.innodata-isogen.com









References:

RE: [dita] DITA Proposed Feature: Extensibility of DITA through new	attributes
From: "Paul Prescod" <[email protected]>






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

--

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