OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only

  • 1.  RE: [dita] Conformance and interoperability

    Posted 07-07-2009 13:17 
    I'm more comfortable with "should" rather than "must" here. 

My problem with "must" for the design patterns, is that the spec doesn't seem to be specific enough about the details of the design patterns to make them such a strong requirement.  

Has this changed in the DITA 1.2 drafts?

And while "should" isn't a strong as "must" it is still pretty strong and much stronger than other options such as "may".

   -Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
Sent: Tue 7/7/2009 7:31 AM
To: Michael Priestley; Dana Spradley
Cc: dita
Subject: Re: [dita] Conformance and interoperability
 
On 7/6/09 6:26 PM, "Michael Priestley"


  • 2.  RE: [dita] Conformance and interoperability

    Posted 07-07-2009 13:40 

    Hi Jeff,

    >My problem with "must" for the design
patterns, is that the spec doesn't 
    >seem to be specific enough about the details of
the design patterns 
    >to make them such a strong requirement.  
    

    I thought the design patterns were very
specific:
    http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.1/OS/archspec/dtdmod.html

    Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
    
Lead IBM DITA Architect
    
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


    

    

    
"Ogden, Jeff"
<jogden@ptc.com> 

    07/07/2009 09:14 AM

    		

    

    


    To
    
    		"Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@reallysi.com>,
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Dana Spradley" <dana.spradley@oracle.com>

    


    cc
    
    		"dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

    


    Subject
    
    		RE: [dita] Conformance and interoperability

    

    

    






    I'm more comfortable with "should" rather
than "must" here.

    
My problem with "must" for the design patterns, is that the spec
doesn't seem to be specific enough about the details of the design patterns
to make them such a strong requirement.  

    
Has this changed in the DITA 1.2 drafts?

    
And while "should" isn't a strong as "must" it is still
pretty strong and much stronger than other options such as "may".

    
   -Jeff


    
-----Original Message-----
    
From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
    
Sent: Tue 7/7/2009 7:31 AM
    
To: Michael Priestley; Dana Spradley
    
Cc: dita
    
Subject: Re: [dita] Conformance and interoperability

    
On 7/6/09 6:26 PM, "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

    
> I'm not sure about the should vs must being a typo. I think it's currently
    
> must, and on purpose.

    
Doh! You're right--I was confusing the requirement to have documents with
    
DTDs or schemas (should) with the design pattern (must).

    
My apologies for any confusion. Too many hours spent reviewing/writing
too
    
many pages of this spec.

    
Cheers,

    
E.

    
----
    
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
    
email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
    
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
    
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
    
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
    
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>


    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php



    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


Related Content