Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 1 
 on: March 28, 2017, 12:25:40 PM 
Started by IBashar - Last post by Derek Read
If Visual Studio doesn't offer to automatically convert the files to whatever new format 2017 uses then you will probably have to stick with 2015. Solution files are something that Visual Studio creates (not XMetaL Developer). Or you might check on the Microsoft support pages for help.

The new version of XMetaL Developer (version 12) will be tested on current releases of Visual Studio but development on 12 has not begun yet.

 2 
 on: March 28, 2017, 02:00:48 AM 
Started by IBashar - Last post by IBashar
Hi,

When I run the XMetal Developer 11 installer it works fine (except for the help modules) but Visual Studio Community 2017 can't open my Solution files ("incompatible").

It used to run fine with Visual Studio Community 2015. Can you help me with that ?

Thanks

 3 
 on: March 27, 2017, 05:59:47 PM 
Started by 55 - Last post by Derek Read
C4:
Are you referring to the Assets tab?

That feature was designed to function with its files stored in Program Files (in the installation path) long before Windows implemented an increased security policy with XP SP2 that made it non-functional. The feature was deprecated in version 5, became unsupported in version 6 and then was disabled starting with version 7.

 4 
 on: March 20, 2017, 10:27:01 PM 
Started by 55 - Last post by C4
Hi,
We need a setting to show assets by default which we cannot locate on the new ini file. Do you know where this would be set?
Thanks.

 5 
 on: March 20, 2017, 08:11:19 AM 
Started by Fa - Last post by Fa
Thank you very much Dereck for your detailed answers. You raise some very good points in them.

I have already looked at the possibility to create our own DTD, but as you will have noticed, I have no experience with it at all and very limited knowledge and understanding of DITA in general. And I don't think the company is willing to purchase custom-made DTDs, so that's kind of out of the question. Also the point you raised of no longer having standard DITA raises a red flag.

I will try to understand better why they need these and how they are converted.

Right now your second suggestion really seems the best (where we would use valid DITA elements and modify the xslt to convert those elements to whatever they want in the html output). So thank you again for taking the time of posting a second reply with this suggestion!

I will follow up on this as soon I get something new to tell.

Best regards,
Fa


 6 
 on: March 15, 2017, 07:30:24 PM 
Started by Fa - Last post by Derek Read
One more point of clarification, you say "They need this to be included in the htm files that are generated when building their software".

It sounds like this element ends up in the final output, meaning that it does not necessarily need to be in the DITA content itself. I suspect what might have occurred with the older version of the DITA Open Toolkit is that it did not recognize the element as being DITA, and it had some form of bug that caused it to pass this element through to the HTML output unmodified. Either newer versions of the DITA OT have corrected this bug or they are simply validating the document properly (stopping all output).

If that is the case then replacing it with a valid DITA element and then altering the DITA Open Toolkit (its XSLT) so that it inserts <Help_anchor> into the HTML output when it sees that element (and possibly element + specific attribute value) is probably what you would want to do.

I'm not even clear on that point though, because <Help_anchor> doesn't exist as part of any HTML spec that I'm aware of, so adding it to an HTML file would make that HTML invalid as well. Perhaps the HTML is custom as well? And it is being displayed with some custom browser or other software (so not really HTML, but perhaps based on HTML)?

 7 
 on: March 15, 2017, 07:24:24 PM 
Started by Derek Read - Last post by Derek Read
This topic has been moved to DITA and XMetaL Discussion.

http://forums.xmetal.com/index.php?topic=3874.0

 8 
 on: March 15, 2017, 12:30:53 PM 
Started by ChrisTMH - Last post by Derek Read
I think you should submit everything you have done to XMetaL Support with a good description of where everything needs to be installed. They they can try to set up a similar system to understand what your issue is, what you are trying to solve, and how that might be done. Most of this sounds like something that can be supported. Include a sample XML document that is representative of something that causes issues.

No guarantees, but it is possible that some kind of solution could be created.

The "custom toolbar" has me a bit concerned though as extending the DITA authoring functionality in this way is not something that is supported, but I guess we will know once they see everything.

Perhaps throwing a faster computer at this issue might be the easiest solution for people that need to work with files that have very large tables?

 9 
 on: March 15, 2017, 12:12:08 PM 
Started by Fa - Last post by Derek Read
Do you know what the purpose of the element is?
Do the people that are adding it know what it is for?
Are they aware that they are adding an element to the document that is making the document invalid?

By far the simplest solution would be to replace this element with an equivalent valid DITA element.

If you cannot modify the XML so it is valid you could create a specialized DITA DTD. DITA defines something called "specialization". This allows you to create a DTD that defines a select number of elements from the standard DITA DTDs as well as define new elements based on existing DITA elements (effectively performing the same "function" but having a different name). You would need to have someone familiar with creating a specialized DITA DTD do this. Once that is done the process for configuring XMetaL Author Enterprise to recognize that DTD as a DITA DTD is quite simple: you just fill in a couple of fields in a dialog and restart the software. Note that in this case you would still need to modify the XML files to change their PUBLIC id so that they no longer reference the standard DITA DTDs (because they are not standard DITA they are specialized). You would modify the XML's DOCTYPE declaration to use the PUBLIC id for the specialized DITA DTD. For all the information we document about DITA specializations see the Help topic: Working with DITA > DITA Specializations.

Of course any DTD used with XMetaL Author can simply be modified directly to allow any element, but that is a bad idea when working with a standards-based DTD like DITA as you are then creating files that are not compatible with the standard. It is only something you would do if you are in complete control of the DTD (in other words, you created or "own" the DTD, and you can roll out that change to everyone and all tools that need it).

 10 
 on: March 15, 2017, 03:01:20 AM 
Started by ChrisTMH - Last post by ChrisTMH
1. Yes
2. Yes that is the main issue
3. We have some topicrefs that are in excess of 600kb, the one I am currently working with has a table that is 500kb in size on it's own. Editing in itself is not slow, however loading the file takes a good fair few minutes. We use DITA.
4. Yes, this is a specialised DITA DTD. Using this function to create a different files containing the chosen elements means that the ditacomponent.dtd is referenced, and as our custom elements are not part of this DTD, they are not recognised. The document is thus always invalid and our custom toolbar is not used - changing the DTD to our specialisation solves this, however we want to save our authoring staff from having to do all of this manually.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
email us