dita — archive

[Kristen Eberlein]

Hi, folk. The draft DITA 2.0 spec currently has the following normative rule: The root element of every topic and map MUST declare the following attributes: @class @specializations As part of the review of the proposal for Relaxing specialization rules , we've had some commentary around this: Robert Anderson If a topic has no integrated attribute domains in 2.0, the value of @specializations will be empty. Is this really a MUS T? Should we clarify to indicate that this must be declared in the grammar, but does not necessarily need to have a value - I know that has caused confusion in the past for a tool that reported errors for empty @domains. Eliot Kimber If @specializations is only relevant to attribute specializations then I think it would be sensible to allow it to be omitted, with an omitted @specializations being equivalent to specializations= (empty or whitespace-only value). The counter to that approach is that you can't easily distinguish between really having no attribute specializations and just forgetting to provide @specializations, but in that case I think you'd get runtime failures if you actually had specializations that weren't declared (i.e., your @props specializations aren't recognized so things don't filter correctly). Seems like an edge case in practice since DITA defines a number of out-of-the box attribute specializations, including now all of the original conditional attributes Kris Eberlein We need to remove this normative rule from this topic. With the exception of specifying the @specializations attribute, it duplicates the normative statement that follows. What do we want to say about the @specialization attribute and where? -- Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee OASIS Distinguished Contributor Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting LLC www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)