atom feed14 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.ditaRe: [dita] DITA 1.1 Doctypes
FromSent OnAttachments
Robert D AndersonJun 7, 2006 7:14 pm 
Rodolfo M. RayaJun 13, 2006 2:20 pm 
Robert D AndersonJun 13, 2006 2:34 pm 
Rodolfo M. RayaJun 13, 2006 3:46 pm 
Scott HudsonJun 20, 2006 7:46 pm 
Robert D AndersonJun 21, 2006 8:08 am 
Rodolfo M. RayaJun 21, 2006 10:35 am 
Paul PrescodJun 21, 2006 11:09 am 
Rodolfo M. RayaJun 21, 2006 11:43 am 
Paul PrescodJun 21, 2006 12:10 pm 
Rodolfo M. RayaJun 21, 2006 12:23 pm 
Scott HudsonJun 21, 2006 12:24 pm 
Robert D AndersonJun 21, 2006 12:31 pm 
Don DayJun 21, 2006 12:34 pm.bin
Subject:Re: [dita] DITA 1.1 Doctypes
From:Robert D Anderson (roba@us.ibm.com)
Date:Jun 21, 2006 8:08:07 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.dita

Are there any vendor concerns with this? I do not really expect any, but I wanted to ask before making the change.

If not, then I will update the modules as follows: * In each DTD and module, I'll use public IDs that include version 1.1 * In the catalog, I'll include the 1.1 IDs and the non-versioned IDs * For any DTD or mod file, the non-versioned public ID means the most recent version of that file

As a matter of process - does anybody know how bookmap should be referenced? It is the first version of bookmap, but it is part of DITA 1.1 -- thus, should the module be called 1.0 or 1.1? Don suggested that OASIS might already have naming guidelines for this sort of situation.

Thanks-

Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787

Scott Hudson <scot@flatironssolutions.com> wrote on 06/20/2006 10:49:50 PM:

I'd like to second Rodolfo's request. I ran into the same problem while trying to validate docs, and happened to have conflicting catalogs. If the DTDs and modules were versioned, I would not have run into the conflict.

Best regards,

--Scott

Rodolfo M. Raya wrote:

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 16:34 -0500, Robert D Anderson wrote:

We've talked in the past about having version specific public IDs available in the catalog, but we would also have the version-agnostic version. The ID with no version would always point to the latest set of document types. This allows users to update their DTDs without having to update the DOCTYPE in their files.

Of course, that particular concern is only a worry for the actual DTD files, not for the modules. So, I'm not sure if we want the modules to use public IDs with versions. My guess would be no, for consistency... but are there any other opinions?

Hi,

IMHO, each DTD and module version should have its own version number in the PUBLIC ID. This is the standard procedure that you can find in other XML vocabularies, like DocBook.

DTDs and catalogues are different things. Lazy users can play with their catalogues and make them point to the latest version without updating DOCTYPE declarations in their documents, but people dealing with different versions should be able to differentiate them in a catalogue.

FWIW, I found the problem while preparing my main catalogue to handle DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 at the same time. I expect user of my tools to have DITA 1.0 files, DITA 1.1 files and also their own customisations of DITA. My programs should be able to resolve the right entities and now the entity resolver cannot differentiate between DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 because the DTDs have the same PUBLIC IDs .

Please keep in mind that not only technical writers deal with DITA files. I work with translation tools and for my company it is important to handle any official version of DITA, without asking translators (our end users) that know nothing about DTDs and catalogues to tweak configuration files every time they get a DITA document to translate.

I think that this issue needs to be carefully reviewed.

Best regards, Rodolfo M. Raya Heartsome

-- The information in this e-mail is intended strictly for the addressee, without prejudices, as a confidential document. Should it reach you, not being the addressee, it is not to be made accessible to any other unauthorised person or copied, distributed or disclosed to any other third party as this would constitute an unlawful act under certain circumstances, unless prior approval is given for its transmission. The content of this e-mail is solely that of the sender and not necessarily that of Heartsome.

-- [attachment "scott.hudson.vcf" deleted by Robert D

Anderson/Rochester/IBM]