So you accept that there can be differences
between DITA implementations. But you feel that only one of those variations
should be included in the standard.
Is this correct?
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Total Information Experience (TIE) Technology Strategist
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
From:
"Rodolfo M. Raya"
<>
To:
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
Cc:
<>
Date:
09/11/2012 01:46 PM
Subject:
RE: [dita] Proposal:
Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Hi,
Please see my new comments
below.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:01 PM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya
Cc:
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Hi Rodolfo,
Would you still feel this way even if there were two completely different
standards? EG: DITA for Rodolfo, and DITA for Specializers?
RMR: this would be as ridiculous
as having two different HTML standards, one for Michael and one for browser
developers. We need just one DITA standard.
If that would be acceptable, what is it about combining them into one standard
- with two deliverables - that makes the whole unacceptable?
RMR: as said above, we need
just one DITA to start with. Those that have special needs can extend,
specialize, customize or whatever by following clearly established rules
that allow tools to work with plain DITA and customized DITA without interoperability
problems.
