nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

5.5.2 to 6.5 and DCT Considerations

Tim__D

Hello,

I'm seeking information about FormsPublisher best practices when moving from 5.5.2 to 6.5.

Do I need to change the DTD to datacapture6.0.dtd?
Is it advantageous to update DCT's and change to the datacapture6.0.dtd for other reasons such as easier use of FormAPI etc..? This would include replacing replicant items with container elements etc...

Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks,

- Tim

Edited by Tim__D on 10/26/05 01:05 PM (server time).

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JeremyH

As far as 1 - I've kept the old 5.0 DTD in my templates without any problems. I'm not even sure if TS validates against this DTD.

However, it could be useful to keep it up to date.

Adam Stoller

Do I need to change the DTD to datacapture6.0.dtd?

No - you don't need to do this - but I believe there's a general shift in emphasis by Interwoven to move to the "xml" style of DCT which the 6.0 DTD supports - so you might want to do this - but you could probably phase it in over time.

Is it advantageous to update DCT's and change to the datacapture6.0.dtd for other reasons such as easier use of FormAPI etc..? This would include replacing replicant items with container elements etc...

If you change the DCTs to be "xml" style - you will need to change all pre-existing DCRs accordingly.

I'm probably missing some pointers on things that also matter - like I think that if you switch to the 6.0 DTD you need to replace all replicants with containers (I don't think you need to do that if you stick with the 5.0 DTD?) and there may be some other things.

Basically - unless you have a driving force to move to the new DTD - I would suggest making sure everything works with the existing DTD first, and then plan for a gradual phase-transition-plan to move to the new DTD.

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

Tim__D

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

1).The only reason to switch to the 6.0 DTD is if we plan to change the DCR type to xml.

2).6.5 works just as well with the 5.0 DTD and it is not necessary to change replicant items to containers

3).Updates/enhancements to FormAPI introduced in 6.5 will work just as well using both replicant or container elements.

Correct?

Edited by Tim__D on 10/26/05 01:54 PM (server time).

Adam Stoller

I believe, in general, that is the case.

That being said, however, any project I work on from this point forward - I'll be looking to switch to to using the 6.x DTD and "xml" style of DCR.

Again - it's a matter of priorities. The first priority in an upgrade is usually to change as little as possible and make sure everything works. The second priority is usually to take advantage of new functionality, the third priority is to look for ways to enhance the existing implementation (usually bolstered by the second priority)

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

Tim__D

I've seen some code examples of xml DCR's and DCT's and it seems that you can separate the presentation of the FormsPublisher form from the schema of the resulting xml. Is that the main driver? Do you have to change the way you code .tpl files when you do this? Why are you moving in that direction? To provide a better user experince?

Adam Stoller

I'd be moving in that direction for at least 2 reasons:

One of the nice things about PTs and modules like TeamSite::XMLnode and TeamSite: Smiley Very Happy

CRnode is that they can deal with either of the DCR formats interchangably because they work on xpath[-like] constructs which are always based on the normalized XML regardless of which format the DCR is in.

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

Tim__D

The xml is much cleaner. Is there an associated overhead with developing your own DTD for each data type or is this not required? I'm trying to figure out if this is something I should be doing for future template development.

Adam Stoller

The only overhead would be the design of the DTD for the DCRs - but I believe you only need to provide a DTD if you want DCRs to be validated against it - otherwise I believe you can just design the DCT the way you currently do and just end up with a simpler looking DCR when all is said and done.

The other alternative - if you *have* a DTD - is to use the DTD to generated the DCT (RTFM for details)

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

my.testing.functions.zip

Tim__D

If my team keeps using the iwov DCR types - there are so many choices now?! See below: I'm wondering which one does interwoven and formAPI support best. See below DCT example and the identical iwov xml as the result. I need to adopt one of these as my coding standard and for a good reason.

<item name="Multi Replicant field">
<replicant min="0" max="10" combination="or">
<item name="Item 1">
<label>Item 1</label>
<description>Please enter data</description>
<text size="50" maxlength="100" />
</item>
<item name="Item 2">
<label>Item 2</label>
<description>Please enter data</description>
<text size="50" maxlength="100" />
</item>
</replicant>
</item>
<container name="Multi Container field" combination="or" min="0" max="10" default="0">
<item name="Item 1">
<label>Item 1</label>
<description>Please enter data</description>
<text size="50" maxlength="100" />
</item>
<item name="Item 2">
<label>Item 2</label>
<description>Please enter data</description>
<text size="50" maxlength="100" />
</item>
</container>
<item name="Single Replicant Field" min="0" max="unbounded" default="1">
<label>Single Replicant Field</label>
<description>Please enter data</description>
<text size="50" maxlength="100" />
</item>

RESULT

<item name="Multi Replicant field">
<value>
<item name="Item 2">
<value/>
</item>
</value>
<value>
<item name="Item 2">
<value/>
</item>
</value>
</item>
<item name="Multi Container field">
<value>
<item name="Item 1">
<value/>
</item>
</value>
<value>
<item name="Item 2">
<value/>
</item>
</value>
</item>
<item name="Single Replicant Field">
<value>
<item name="Single Replicant Field">
<value/>
</item>
</value>
<value>
<item name="Single Replicant Field">
<value/>
</item>
</value>
</item>

Edited by Tim__D on 10/27/05 10:51 AM (server time).

Adam Stoller

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
Have you spent some time reading the Forms Publisher Developer's Guide?
Have you spent some time reading the 5.0 and 6.0 DTDs to understand the differences?

Interwoven supports both styles of DCRs - but they seem to be leaning in favor of the "xml" style over the "iwov" style (IWOV folks feel free to chime in) - so going forward - doing the same on your side would seem to make sense.

Does this mean you have to change everything right now? No.
Does this mean you should develope *new* DCTs to use the "xml" style? Probably
Should you be asking me to make a decision for you? No.

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com