dita — archive

RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization

From: Michael Priestley
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:25:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















dita message






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

--

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








Subject: RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization




From: Michael Priestley <[email protected]>
To: "Paul Prescod" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:28:44 -0400




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. We've had this discussion
before, and I guess we'll keep having it. The current form of the proposal
already reflects a compromise between your views and mine, as well as input
from others. If you want to reopen the full debate, I guess we will - but
my position hasn't changed, and I consider this a core promise for the
architecture, and worth defending, even if it means delaying the entire
feature.

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.

Michael Priestley

IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead

[email protected]

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





"Paul Prescod"
<[email protected]> 
04/18/2006 09:53 AM




To
"Esrig, Bruce \(Bruce\)"
<[email protected]>


cc
<[email protected]>


Subject
RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization









> From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:[email protected]]

> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:43 AM

> Subject: RE: [dita] Attribute Generalization

>

> Although it would make it more difficult to support DITA, I

> have a conflicting urge, which is to allow even more

> expressive power ...

>

> props="proglanguage(Java) audience(CompanyA(student)

> CompanyB(teacher))"


But what does that mean? Just the same as:


proglanguage="java" audience="student teacher"


Or


proglanguage="java" CompanyA="student" CompanyB="teacher"


Or something else altogether?


> A compromise would be to put declarations of attributes into

> the props attribute, and then have processors that support

> extensibility look in those attributes for the values.


I think that according to the proposal, declarations go in the domains

attribute.


 Paul Prescod









References:

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






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

--

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