I've been watching people hack DITA for years trying to deal with
product and sometimes feature names in a consistent XML-like way.
Prior to DITA, I worked on a similar XML architecture
(concept/task/reference) with a custom processing kit. With numerous
product names and feature names in an almost continual state of
flux, we decided to treat product names and feature names as global
variables with a mapping file for the literal strings (in English).
The literal product and feature names were then inserted at build
time and appeared in the output. (We used editor maps to virtually
display the same content in the authoring editor for the convenience
of writers.)
The inherent problem with this approach is that the mapped strings
must be translatable. As products and features can have plurals and
possessives, these must also be handled in the mapping file and
accounted for in the variable element.
It is not permissible for instance to have a construct like:
<varProduct>s or <varProduct>'s appear in the XML
content as translators will translate the mapping file elsewhere and
not be able to easily reconcile the plurals and possessives in the
content itself. (I think these were the only variations we had to
worry about, but it's been a while I admit.)
So we expanded the variables schema to include attributes for
plurals and possessives in the variable elements themselves, which
the writers selected at authoring time. This required some training
as the process is a little abstract. You do not for instance add an
apostrophe to the product XML element when building a possessive,
but select an attribute in the editor and let the build do it.
The mapping file then contained base product and feature names plus
their plural and possessive forms.
A build engineer maintained the mapping files and creation of new
variable codes supporting first instance of new features and product
names. We had workflow where writers would contact the engineer when
needing a new variable value that was not already covered, though
most were set up at the beginning of a release with the
identification of new products and features.
The upside of this approach is that the output for product or
feature names was entirely automated. If feature or product names
changed late, as often happens in the software industry, we tweaked
the mapping file at build time and the writers didn't have to do
anything at all.
As far as graphics and special formatting in some product and
feature names went, we handled this purely at build time with
special processing instructions for the applicable variables.
Otherwise, we're really talking about desktop publishing practices
in XML and I'm not sure if DITA should inherently support this or if
those features should be handled with a custom processing chain for
those particular elements. Strictly speaking, formatting and
graphics are a rendering operation during build time. In XML,
writers shouldn't have to care about how to format a product name or
add special graphics to it. That's my philosophy as an anti-DTP guy.
I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the same thing, but this
global mapping architecture worked really well, saved a lot of time,
and was just generally really convenient all around for everybody
once implemented.
In short, I inherently think of product and feature names as
variables and whatever architecture handles and processes them must
be able to address the issues of variables in text.
Troy Klukewich
Manager & Information Architect
Fusion HCM
Oracle Corporation
On 1/14/2013 1:43 PM, Kristen James Eberlein wrote:
A thread about difficulty in reusing products names has cropped up
on the dita-users list.
Problem descriptions
1) Information architects or editors design a reuse strategy that
revolves around using the <ph> element to hold product
names. They then discover that they cannot put a <ph>
element within any of the following elements:
<uicontrol>
<wintitle>
2) Another team decides to use <keyword> to hold their
product names -- better choice -- but they also discover that
they cannot put a keyword element within a <wintitle>
element; they have to duplicate their product names within
<text> elements for use within <wintitle> elements.
And the <tm> element is not available within <text>.
3) Yet another team is stymied because their product name
contains typographic formatting (superscript, subscript, bold or
italic formatting, an inline image) that cannot be contained in
either the <keyword> or <text> element. And while
the text element can nest, the @outputclass attribute is not
available.
Architects and the writers are caught between a strong desire
to reuse content and ensure that product names are consistently
used, and a need to have their company's name render correctly.
Thoughts about how we might try to address this problem? And
sense about how big (or small) this problem is?
--
Best,
Kris
