I
request that option 3 remain on the table. The record should reflect that it was
considered and supported by at least one member. I dont think there is any
reason to discuss it further. I feel that my points (summarized below) have been
understood, considered, and voted down fairly.
We should not
re-invent the past. Re-creating task as a constraint of general task is a
bait-and-switch approach that aims to atone for a structure type that is too
constrained for many users.
The only proper way
to create a new structure type is to specialize from an existing structure
type that is less restrictive than the desired new structure type. Hence, the
only proper way to create a general task (assuming you cannot re-invent the
past) is to create it from topic.
Those who would use
general task will likely have no content in the task model (if they did, then
they probably dont need general task). Therefore, the desire for re-use
between task and general task is not compelling enough to set a precedence for
following the rules only when it's convenient. Along the same lines, there is
not problem with reuse between task and general task, because there presently
is no general task. Only when general task is unveiled will it become a
problem to the users who wake up to one of the workarounds that we
force users to deal with.
Creating general
task from topic is simple, clean, and obeys all the rules and fundamental DITA
principles.
Fall-back styling
from topic is sufficient.
No workarounds
required, unless you want to begin using the new general task model and share
content. The archspec clearly defines generalization/specialization
requirements. A simple transform can take an entire data set from the task
model to the general task model. One time migration, zero time lost messing
with constraint domains, catalogs, module names, loose/strict conref
validation, etc.
I still have no idea
what benefit anybody gets by the proposed method of creating task from general
task, but, I defer to the wisdom of the TC.
Respectfully,
-seth
park
From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:28 AM
To:
dita
Subject: [dita] strict task vs. general task vs. the file naming
and module rules
Back to our continuing saga of strict task vs. general
task vs. the file naming and module rules and compatability between DITA 1.0,
1.1, and 1.2 task customizations.
I've been trying to think of ways to make progress on this
issue.
My collusion is that we are trying too hard to reach a
consensus and in trying to do that we've put more and more compromises on the
table, each one more complicated, more confusing, and less satisfactory. I think
we should stop doing that, put the fundamental alternatives on the table for the
TC to discuss once more and then have the TC vote to choose one of the
alternatives.
My suggestion is that the TC choose between these two
alternatives:
1.
Status quo. Users with customized DITA 1.0 or 1.1
task document type shells will implicitly switch from the strict to the general
task model when they move to DITA 1.2 unless they take steps to add the new
strict task constraint to their existing specializations. We continue to follow
all of the design pattern rules for file naming and module separation. This is
option #1 in the summary table below.
2.
Make changes so that existing DITA 1.0 and 1.1
task customizations remain compatible in DITA 1.2. Add new files and make
changes to existing files, PUBLIC IDs, and URIs so that existing DITA 1.0 and
1.1 task document type shells continue to use the strict rather than the general
task model. This will violate the existing design pattern file naming and module
separation rules. In the DITA 1.2 spec. make the file naming rule a SHOULD
rather than a MUST. Place the files (task.mod and taskMod.xsd) that violate the
module separation rules in a deprecated directory where they will not be used by
any other DITA 1.2. We will keep the deprecated directory and non-conforming
files until we get to DITA 2.0 where we can make incompatible
changes.
Either approach will require updates to the DITA 1.2 spec.
to explain to people what is going on and what they need to do to get various
behaviors that they may want.
No matter which option the TC chooses we should add new
PUBLIC IDs and URIs that include the phrases “strict task” and “general task”
rather than simply “task” so that it is clearer what type of task model one is
getting when using the various doctype shells and modules. We would maintain the
existing unqualified “task” PUBLIC IDs and URIs to maintain compatibility with
prior releases.
Not included is a third alternative that the TC has
previously decided not to pursue:
3.
Abandon constraints as the method to create
general and strict tasks in favor of a new specialization and new doctype shells
that avoid the problems associated with reusing the existing task.mod and
taskMod.xsd files and identifiers for new purposes.
If someone on the TC feels strongly that this alternative
should be considered, they should say so.
As I’m sure everyone knows by now, I prefer option
#2. I don’t like option #1, but I do think it is better than alternative
#3.
Here is a summary that was put together during some
private e-mail exchanges between Michael, Robert, and me and then updated by me
to reflect the details of the current proposals.
|------------------------+------------------------+------------------------|
|Option
|Who benefits?
|Who's hurt, and when? |
|------------------------+------------------------+------------------------|
|1. Do
nothing. |1) No new DTD /
Schema |1) People
with
|
|
| updates required |customized shells
that |
|
|
|do not want the loose |
|
|2) People who want the |task model, and who have|
|
| loose model
|not read the spec to |
|
| automatically |find out
about the |
|
|
|change. Affected as soon|
|
|
|as they move to 1.2. If |
|
|
|they notice quickly, |
|
|
|they can learn how to |
|
|
|add the constraint and |
|
|
|add it; if they notice |
|
|
|late, they may already |
|
|
|have docs that make it |
|
|
|tough to add the
|
|
|
|constraint.
|
|------------------------+------------------------+------------------------|
|2. Rename the existing
|1) People with custom |1) People who do not
use|
|task.mod to
be |shells who want
the |catalogs for their local|
|generalTask.mod, create
|strict model. I am |doctypes - but they're
|
|new PUBLIC IDs and URIs
|assuming the deprecated |already in trouble due |
|that point to the “new”
|task.mod gives the |to our new directories,
|
|file, change all of the
|strict model in one way |so they'll just be a bit|
|DITA 1.2 files that we
|or
another.
| more confused that task|
|distribute to use
the
|
| is now "deprecated" |
|new PUBLIC IDs or URIs,
|
|
|
|rename the task doctype
|
|2) People who rely on |
|shells to
strictTask.dtd|
|catalogs for the DTD |
|or .xsd, keep
the
|
|doctypes - but they're |
|existing PUBLIC ID and
|
|only, but system IDs for|
|URIs for the
task
|
|the modules, are also |
|doctype shells pointing
|
|forced to change
|
|to strictTask,
create
|
|more confused that task |
|new “strictTask” PUBLIC
|
|is now "deprecated" |
|IDs and URIs that also
|
|2) People who rely on |
|point to the strictTask
|
|catalogs for the DTD |
|doctype shells, create
|
|only, but system IDs for|
|deprecated/dtd/task.mod
|
|the modules, are also |
|and
|
|forced to change
|
|deprecated/xsd/taskMod.x|
|
|
|sd and point
the
|
|
|
|existing PUBLIC IDs and
|
|
|
|URIs at
it.
|
|
|
-Jeff
