COnformance targets need better up-front definitions

    • Type: Bug
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Priority: Major
    • None
    • Affects Version/s: Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) Version 1.3 CSPRD01
    • Component/s: Public reviews
    • None
    • Environment:

      Conformance

      Although the conformance clause(s) do a good job distinguishing conformance targets, these have been mentioned many times before the conformance clauses, without much of a definition. For example, "DITA processor" is used abundantly throughout the specification, but I could not find a definition of what it is (even if we can guess intuitively).
      A functional definition should be introduced/referred to much earlier - e.g. terminology or glossary - before the conformance clause(s).
      Similarly, the term "implementation" is used throughout, but not clearly functionally defined. Only in the conformance clauses we find a tentative definition, which is a bit hard to distinguish from "processor". Couldn't the notion of processor cover such "implementations"? Normally, "implementation" is a generic term that covers all kinds of ways to implement a specification - here to implement DITA including DITA documents.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Jacques Durand (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated: