Re: [dita] "Interchange standard domain configuration"

Specialized topic types can statically declare dependencies on specific
domains. As long as the SIDSC specializations do that, then I think it all
works.

Cheers,

E.

On 10/15/09 11:50 AM, "Park Seth-R01164" <> wrote:

> The discussion about constraints has made the challenge of interchanging
> content created with domain usage very real for many of us.
>  
> In SIDSC, we are trying to ensure that our members can interchange
> content reliably, where there is a known path amongst the different
> SIDSC-provided constrained types and a reliable mechanism to get any
> local constrained types back to one of the SIDSC-provided types.
>  
> As I understand it, we can always use generalization/re-specialization
> from a common ancestor, but that common ancestor must not only be the
> same document type; it must also have identical domain usage. Which
> means, unless we want to generalize all the way back to the DITA base
> type, the only way to ensure we have a common SIDSC ancestor is to
> declare an "interchange standard", which is a certain configuration of
> domains.
>  
> Am I understanding this correctly? If so, it it fair play to define an
> "interchange standard domain configuration" within SCs? Are there other
> applications of this concept that might simplify some of the issues
> we're dealing with?
>  
>  
> -seth
>  
>  
>  
> --------------------------------------------
> seth park
> information architect
> Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
> 
> 512.895.2463
>  

----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:   <mailto:>
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>