dita — archive

Re: [dita] Another graphic question

From: Eliot Kimber
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:15:00 -0000

That's my picture, Tom. 1: I think the idea was that the constraint module is likely to be specific to the shell or created by the shell creator, rather than something you get from a 3rd party. While the TC provides a couple of constraint modules, that's only because we needed them for backward compatibility. Normally constraints would be very specific to your local requirements. 2. Yes. Again, I think my idea was that the middle was the domain of the shell owner, while the right column is invariant modules and the left column is document instances. I was also probably trying to avoid having 4 columns just to have somewhere to put the constraint module. Cheers, E. ---- Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 7/27/15, 6:36 PM, "Tom Magliery" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Who created, or at least fully understands, this diagram? > http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/csprd01/part3-all-inclusive/arch >Spec/base/document-type-shells.html > >I'm having trouble understanding two things, and I want to improve them >in the revision. Actually the two things are kinda both the same thing. > >1. Is the constraint module deliberately blue (same as the DTD)? > >2. Are the labels across the top meant to apply vertically to the rest of >the components? I.e. is the constraint module considered to be "part of" >the document-type shell? (It does seem correct to me that domain modules >and structural modules are both considered "vocabulary modules".) > >mag >