On 10/9/09 11:59 PM, "Ogden, Jeff" <> wrote:
Sorry I wasn't on the call--it was our yearly RSuite User Conference (at
which DITA was mentioned quite a lot, by the way).
> Glossary Group (glossgroup) wasn¹t part of DITA 1.1. It is currently described
> in the ³Glossary related elements² section within the ³Glossary elements²
> section within the ³Technical Contents² section of the draft DITA 1.2 Language
> Reference. I don¹t see any mention of Glossary Group in the Architecture
> portions of the spec. although it is always possible that I missed it. I
> don¹t see any harm in adding Glossary Group to the Technical Content ditabase
> and so think we should add it.
I can think of no reason not to include glossary group in ditabase. Of
course, if one of your use cases for ditabase was organizing sets of
reusable glossary entries, glossary group now meets that requirement. On the
other hand, it could be useful to have peer glossary groups within a single
ditabase for purely organizational purposes.
Cheers,
E.
----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email: <mailto:>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
