On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Hussein Shafie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Douglas W Philips wrote: > > We've recently started to upgrade from DITAC 1.2.1 to 2.0.x and have > > run into a few issues that surprised us based on our reading of the > > release notes. > > > > First one has to do with the legal values for the 'id' attribute. > > The release notes say that as of version 1.2.2_01, ids are NMTOKENs. > > Looking at the definition of NMTOKEN as defined here: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-2e-20000814#NT-Nmtoken > > It seems to us that completely numeric 'id' values should be > > acceptable, but we had to convert all of our 'id' values to start with a > > letter before DITAC would accept them. > > If this is the case with ditac 2.x, then please report this problem as a > bug (which I cannot reproduce; see below). > Ok. I was able to reproduce this on 2.0.2, and will file a separate bug report. Since we have already converted our id values to something more human readable, this isn't a show-stopper for us right now. I will have to see if I can create a small sample example to demonstrate the bug, so it may be later in the week until I can get it submitted. The id attribute of a topic must be an NCName (may not be completely > numeric). The id attribute of any element contained in a topic must be > an NMTOKEN (may be completely numeric). > Our topic IDs were already letters and underscores, it was just the contained element id attributes that were completely numeric (inherited through our FrameMaker to DITA conversion process). > We have no problem issuing a warning when an id is automatically > replaced by ditac 2.x. This will be done in the next release of ditac 2.x. > Thank you! The filtering attributes are honored at topic/concept level, except that > you cannot filter out the topic/concept itself. In order to do that, you > indeed have to set the filtering attribute on the corresponding topicref. > I'm not sure what you mean by this. What we are seeing is that the content of a concept is present in the final document, which was not true for 1.2.1. With 2.0.2 it is as if the concept's attribute filter was not even present. > We forgot to specify this important change in the release notes of ditac > and we are really sorry that you get caught by this limitation. We'll of > course document it in the next release of ditac 2.x. > > Unfortunately, the current implementation of ditac 2.x makes it quite > difficult to revert to the behaviour of ditac 1.x. > Thanks for the info. -Doug
-- XMLmind DITA Converter Support List [email protected] http://www.xmlmind.com/mailman/listinfo/ditac-support
