dita — archive

Re: [dita] Normative language specification

From: Bruce Nevin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:40:00 -0000





From the DITA TC minutes for 15 
December:

3. ITEM - Status of language spec and Normative schema.

Response from M. McCrae is that the prose description takes precedence over the DTD. See - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200912/msg00035.html. 
As I read Mary's post 
(below), we could and should specify whatever precedence we think is best. 


  If the DTD (or schema, or both) code is "reproduced 
  in the specification"--or, I suppose, if it is included by a performative text 
  reference saying that it is "hereby included"--then "the plain text file" of 
  code "takes precedence".

  But "typically" the prose description in the spec should "be specified" to take precedence over the 
  DTD. (Emphasis 
  added.)
  "It's 
  always helpful to call this out explicitly in the specification itself". 
  We should "specify which 
  schema format (if any) is normative or takes precedence" (i.e. DTD vs. 
  schema).
I don't see an OASIS dictum there, I see a range 
of choices and the recommendation that we make a decision, with some guidance as 
to what makes sense and what's typical.
 
Seth alluded to "some discussions recently that clearly 
indicate that DTD technology is insufficient to represent the normative 
language specifications", with the implication (or 
anyway my inference) that we consider making schema normative. He asked what was 
our position on this; SFAIK that question hasn't been clarified. (I can 
readily understand a view that the schema implementation should be constrained 
to what DTD can do, at least until tools more adequately and generally support 
schema.)
 
Jeff asked "is the order of priority:  DTDs, XSDs, Language Spec., Arch. 
Spec?" 
 
(It is odd to have a reference document take 
normative precedence over a specification. If that is the case, maybe we 
should treat it as a specification that happens to be used as a 
reference.)
 In summary, we should 
determine the normative order and specify it in the normative section of the 
spec. Has this been done?
 
    /Bruce
 


 Subject: Re: [dita] Normative language 
specification


  From: Mary McRae 
  <[email protected]>
  To: "Ogden, Jeff" <[email protected]>
  Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:58:39 -0500



  
  
    Hi folks,
      

       There seems to be much confusion around this rule. If the DTD 
      is reproduced in the specification, the plain text file takes precedence. 
      Unless your DTD or schema *is* your spec, the prose description would 
      typically be specified to take precedence over the DTD. It's always 
      helpful to call this out explicitly in the specification itself (that the 
      prose takes precedence over any schema notation) but you'll also want to 
      specify which schema format (if any) is normative or takes 
      precedence.
      

      Mary
      

      
  
      On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Ogden, Jeff wrote:


      
        
        
        Isn’t 
        having the DTDs be normative an OASIS rule?  If so, then our 
        position may have been clarified for us already.
        
        So 
        is the order of priority:  DTDs, XSDs, Language Spec., Arch. 
        Spec?  All with the hope that we don’t actually have any true 
        conflicts.
        
            
        -Jeff
        
        
        
        
        From: Park Seth-R01164 
        [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 1:08 
        PM
To: dita
Subject: [dita] Normative language 
        specification
        
        
        I've been 
        spreading rumors that the DTDs are normative when there is a conflict 
        between the lang spec and the DTDs.
        
         
        
        There have been 
        some discussions recently that clearly indicate that DTD 
        technology is insufficient to represent the normative language 
        specifications.
        
         
        
        Can we clarify 
        our position on this?
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
        -sp
        
         
        --------------------------------------------
        seth 
        park
        information 
        architect
        Freescale 
        Semiconductor, Inc.
        [email protected]
        512.895.2463