dita — archive

Re: [dita] Bookmaps and booklists

From: Kristen Eberlein <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:34:00 -0000

I'm trying to remember whether we decided that we would not make backwards-incompatible changes to bookmap ... Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype) On 8/14/2018 8:51 AM, Scott Hudson wrote: Indeed! Replace is what I should have used Thanks, --Scott From: Magliery Tom <[email protected]> Date: Monday, August 13, 2018 at 3:34 PM To: Scott Hudson <[email protected]> Cc: Ãric Sirois <[email protected]> , DITA TC <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [dita] Bookmaps and booklists Side note: We're eschewing deprecate for DITA 2.0, so the actual proposal in this case would be to *replace* the amendments element with amendlist. There are appropriate sections in the proposal template in which we would describe what would be required for migration. mag On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Scott Hudson < [email protected] > wrote: What if we deprecated the <amendments> element and created a new <amendlist> that followed the similar content model of the other <booklist> elements? Then you could still move the functionality, without the content model issues? --Scott From: < [email protected] > on behalf of Ãric Sirois < [email protected] > Date: Monday, August 13, 2018 at 3:12 PM To: DITA TC < [email protected] > Subject: [dita] Bookmaps and booklists Hi, I have been having a discussion with Eliot and Kris about some f the changes to bookmap for DITA 2.0, specifically the amendments update. The issue at hand is that while the update is doable with RNG and XSD, we will have issues when converting them to DTDs. So if we wanted to support this in 2.0, we would need two different elements to differentiate the booklists from the backmatter and the frontmatter. As well there is Scott s note about revision history in booklists as well that we need to discuss. Here is a snippet of the discussion: <snip author= Eric > I m working on the changes to bookmap for DITA 2.0 and one change we wanted to do was to move <amendments> into <booklists>. That s easily doable with RNG and XSD, but no so much with DTDs and likely the reason why it's designed that way in the current DTDs. The concern that I have at the moment is that when we do an RNG to DTD conversion, we are going to run into the same issue again because it s not technically feasible in the DTD world unless I m missing something. The technical issue is that the content model for booklists front matter would be different than the content model for booklists in the backmatter. If we can t get the design we want to work in the DTD world, then I think we should leave things as is for DITA 2.0. </smip> <snip author= Eliot > The RNG must conform to DTD constraints, unfortunately, so a given element must have the same content model everywhere it is used. That means booklists has to be a union of everything that would be wanted at the front or back of a manual or you would need two different booklist element types in order to have different content models. That seems like a reasonable solution, e.g. booklists-frontmatter , booklists-backmatter . Ideally, we would have a domain that defines the abstract base type from which specific booklist specializations would be derived (i.e., move current booklists to a domain and then use that domain as the basis for whatever specialized booklists you need). But I realize that goes beyond the current remit for BookMap 2.0. </snip> Kind regards, Ãric Sirois DITA Toolsmith IXIASOFT 825 Querbes, Suite 200, MontrÃal, QuÃbec, Canada, H2V 3X1 tel + 1 514 279-4942 / toll free + 1 877 279-4942 mobile + 1 647 462-3620 [email protected] / www.ixiasoft.com