Erik Hennum wrote:
> Hi, Eliot:
>
> Good to have this thoughtful review of the full list. A specific follow
> up on issue 12008:
>
> - 12008 - Potentially very complicated, not clear that it's needed,
> could be controversial
By "not clear that it's needed" I don't meant that the requirement isn't
genuine but that the *solution* as specified isn't needed given the
ability to enable configuration using normal DTD and schema methods.
That is, if DITA took a DocBook-style approach to the declarations and
made very content model a parameter entity/group then the existing
configuration mechanisms would be sufficient to enable precise control
over what is allowed in a given context.
If XSD 1.1 includes the assertion mechanism that Mike Kay has been
championing on the xmlschema dev list, then this requirement could be
completely satisfied using XSD schemas with assertions (which, if fully
realized, would let you use any XPath expression to assert constraints
on any element).
My fear is that the proposal is essentially defining a new schema
language, which we definitely don't want to do.
I have already found it frustrating in my own recent DITA work that
every content model is not separately parameterized--I see no reason why
they should not be and if they were, most, if not all of this
requirement could be met using existing mechanism.
Cheers,
Eliot
--
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759
(214) 954-5198
www.innodata-isogen.com
