> So you're saying all the work I've done over the last two years
> to use DITA to implement Publishing workflows and DITA-based
> management of content is somehow wrong?
I apologize for any misunderstanding. I didn't mean to discount your work
with the publishing specializations.
Once you have successfully described the mark-up for the publishing industry
we will be able to take what was traditionally unstructured narrative
content and blend in structured technical content with ease. I see a lot of
potential for this. There is obviously a large user base that will also be
able to take advantage of the mechanics that have been built up around DITA.
Once it is complete, I wouldn't think that it will drive a lot more
derivative specializations from it. Without semantic markup, we knock the IT
out of DITA. Without real information typing, we lose a lot of the potential
that DITA has promised. Much of our work in the BusDocs subcommittee has
been to identify real semantic information contained in what we've thought
of as traditionally narrative, unstructured content.
My comments were simply meant to say that you've got the publishing use case
covered. Most new use cases will benefit from semantic, topic-based
information development that can readily take advantage of core information
types.
Cheers,
Rob
