- The content conforming to a customized design can still be regarded as DITA content
- The customizations are pluggable into DITA document types and reusable across document types (including across organization boundaries)
- Processors can recognize customizations and detect when customized content is compatible with other DITA designs (customized or not)
Hoping that clarifies,
Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com
"Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@reallysi.com> wrote on 08/21/2007 08:18:07 AM:
> I tend to agree with Paul on this one. I’m having a hard time seeing
> how this is doing anything that can’t be done simply by providing
> content model parameters for each element type, which can then be
> tuned on a per-shell basis to impose whatever constraints are desired.
>
>
>
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:26 AM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Groups - Proposal 12008 - vocabulary and
> integration constraints (HTML) (IssueConstraints12008.html) uploaded
>
> If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds like we are augmenting DTD
> constraints with some home brew syntax and semantics that users will
> need to learn and understand and implementors will need to implement.
>
> It sounds to me like some of these more complex proposals are just
> piling completely new concepts on top of an already complex
> application. Am I the only one somewhat concerned with the
> complexity we are adding to DITA?
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]