I'm sorry I wasn't clear about my backwards compatibility concern. I'm
mostly worried about stylesheets looking for class="...
bookmap/authorinformation" that would break when it became class="...
xnal/authorinfomation".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:43 PM
> To: Paul Prescod
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [dita] Bookmap/XNAL repercussions
>
> I was discussing that some with Erik Hennum -- my thought is
> that yes, I think it would be backwards compatible, but it
> might depend on how that item is designed. Somehow, users
> will be able to create a structural specialization that
> requires or uses a domain element. I have not had any input
> on that discussion, so I'm not sure how it will be done.
>
> One way to make this backwards compatible would be to move
> XNAL to a domain, but write the bookmap module so that it
> still requires that domain element. Any specialization of
> bookmap would still have to have the XNAL elements, but it
> would be available as a domain for any other topic type or map type.
>
> I'm not sure if that would work or not. My hope is yes, but
> if not, it could remain a part of bookmap until 2.0. By
> keeping the current design in the implementation, it would
> still be available anywhere else as a domain once 1.2 comes
> out. That's why I was a bit wishy-washy in saying we could
> move it in 1.2 or 2.0.
>
> Robert D Anderson
> IBM Authoring Tools Development
> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
>
> "Paul Prescod" <> wrote on 06/20/2006
> 02:29:45 PM:
>
> > Wouldn't moving XNAL into its own domain be backwards incompatible
> > when we do it in DITA 1.2?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:11 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: [dita] Bookmap/XNAL repercussions
> > >
> > >
> > > As I make the bookmap changes from today's meeting, I'm
> also merging
> > > it with the other 1.1 prototype files that are available. While
> > > doing that, the decision to make XNAL into a domain has
> demonstrated
> > > some side effects.
> > >
> > > The XNAL domain adds one element, authorinformation, as a
> > > specialization of <data>. The <data> design has it
> appearing in many
> > > more locations than I had first understood, including inside most
> > > other meta elements. This means that, among others, the
> > > authorinformation element now shows up inside elements like
> > > <source>, <category>, and <platform>.
> > >
> > > I've mentioned before that the XNAL domain will not be useful in
> > > topic specializations until domain specialization is enhanced,
> > > allowing you to limit where your new element shows up. That
> > > enhancement has been talked about for DITA 1.2. I thought that
> > > bookmap's constrained model worked around this problem, but it is
> > > becoming clear that I was wrong. So, primarily for usability
> > > reasons, I would propose the following changes to
> > > bookmap:
> > >
> > > 1. Do not include authorinformation as a domain. Instead,
> include it
> > > directly in the bookmap as a child of bookmeta.
> > > 2. Continue to define all of the XNAL elements in a
> separate module.
> > > In DITA 1.2 or DITA 2.0, plan to move XNAL to a domain.
> This will be
> > > easy because it is already maintained in its own module.
> > >
> > > Are there any concerns with this proposal?
> > >
> > > Robert D Anderson
> > > IBM Authoring Tools Development
> > > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> > > (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
> > >
> > >
>
>
