Some potential users of the base package:
- people creating tools that work with
simple content applications with minimal structure, like unstructured blogs,
news feeds, web page components...
- people who would otherwise not read
the spec because it's too big, and can now be seduced into reading just
the first part, which provides a context that makes the rest less intimidating
Re the organization below - I'm not
sure about the order but the split looks right.
Thanks for making this discussion concrete.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Kristen James Eberlein
<>
08/21/2009 10:33 AM
To
DITA TC <>
cc
Subject
Re: [dita] problem with packaging of
glossaries
Two key issues:
1. Who
do we anticipate being the potential users of the base package?
2. Michael,
I want you to look at the current contents of the language reference material
for both the base and technical content version. Is this as you have been
envisioning it?
Best,
Kris
Michael Priestley wrote:
The point of a separate base package is to provide the bare minimum of
DITA support - just topic, map, basic utility domain.
So absolutely everything else gets relegated out to another package - and
since we've only got two other packages, that means they either go into
tech docs or learning and training.
I'm fine with renaming the tech doc package to something else, if it helps
- even "key specializations" if that would do the trick. But
if we move any specializations into the base package, we undermine the
point of having it.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"JoAnn Hackos"
<>
08/20/2009 05:40 PM
To
"Bruce Nevin \(bnevin\)"
<>,
<>
cc
Subject
RE: [dita] problem with packaging of
glossaries
I am in favor of Bruce’s second recommendation. What is the problem with
stating that concept, task, and reference are key specializations in the
DITA standard? Why should they be relegated to technical communication
only? I just don’t see the point of that.
Even if there is a All DITA package, we’re not including information about
task, concept, and reference information types in the base architectural
specification, but only in the arch spec for technical communication.
I’ve never been in favor of this split and would strongly prefer that
we include task, concept, reference, and glossary in the base architectural
specification. That would leave us with the machine industry specialization,
which is, of course, extremely relevant for many outside the machine industry,
and the various domains (software, ui, programming, machine industry, safety
hazard). Also bookmap. Why is bookmap considered relevant only for technical
communication. It’s probably less relevant there and more relevant for
DocBook aficionados.
Since I’m writing the tech comm arch spec content and the topic content,
I’d be very happy to restore task, concept, reference, and glossary to
the base arch spec. I could include a statement that these may primarily
relate to product documentation although I really don’t think that’s
true.
JoAnn
JoAnn Hackos PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
Skype joannhackos
From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:24 AM
To:
Subject: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
This came up in the spec authoring meeting today.
The problem: <glossentry> is specialized from <concept>. <task>,
<concept>, and <reference> are in the TechDocs package. This
forces <glossentry> etc. to be restricted to the TD package. But
non-TechDocs folks need glossaries, and support for them should be in the
base.
Two solutions:
1. Accept
this. Present it as an unfortunate fait accompli for 1.2 -- if you want
a glossary, you have to use the TD package (or specialize your own).
2. Move
<task>, <concept>, and <reference> back into the base,
sans TD-specific domain specializations, and include those specializations
in the TD package. Present this as an interim step toward simplified topics
being developed by the BusDocs SC.
Comment? Action?
/Bruce
