OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only

Re: [dita] Deprecated item in grammar files - nbsp

  • 1.  Re: [dita] Deprecated item in grammar files - nbsp

    Posted 09-01-2020 07:46
      |   view attached




    Kris s suggestion works for me. I agree we should get rid of it.
     

     
    Gershon Joseph     Senior Information Architect   Precision Content  
    Direct:  +972 (54) 658-3887   Email:  gershon@precisioncontent.com  
    www.precisioncontent.com
     

     
    Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise

    This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
    If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.   Please
    notify us by return email if you have received this email in error.  20 20 ,
    Precision Content Authoring Solutions Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

     
     

    From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Robert Anderson <robert.dan.anderson@oracle.com>
    Date: Friday, 28 August 2020 at 1:46
    To: "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: [dita] Deprecated item in grammar files - nbsp


     

    I was reminded today that our DITA 1.0 grammar files defined one (and only one) HTML character entity, the NBSP:
    https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/blob/DITA-2.0/doctypes/dtd/base/topic.mod#L88
     
    As you can see following that link, there is a comment in the grammar file marking it deprecated. I m pretty sure that comment dates back to DITA 1.1 (I know it s in the 1.2 files). The entity is only valid
    against the topic DTD, not the XSD or RNG.
     
    Given that history, I think this should have been included in the proposal to remove deprecated items, but we just scanned the spec itself for that, and this entity is never mentioned in the spec. Unless there
    is a proposal to add it back, we should go ahead and clean this item up.
     
    I just asked Kris about the best way to handle that sort of missed item, and she suggested amending the remove deprecated items proposal to include this; we could also add in the item from a couple weeks
    back that removed a deprecated glossary.dtd shell.
     
    Any comments or concerns?
     
    Thanks
    Robert