[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Filename extensions
Adoption TC Meeting 28th jan. 4. Business 8. ITEM: Discuss David Hollis's review of the DITA language specification sections and RDA's responses From email D Hollis - R Anderson, 11th Jan. <snip> >> xref >> >> filename.xml# ... should that be filename.dita? Can we have >> consistency & examples of best practice, please?! > > The architectural spec makes clear that .xml and .dita should both be > supported by DITA applications, though it does not rule out other > extensions. I know people on both sides who insist their choice is > correct, > as well as those who insist you should mix both freely. I find that > makes > it a bit more difficult to be consistent ... any more thoughts on it? > Personally, in my life, I use .dita all the time ... but I know of > tools > that create them each way. I once worked for someone who advocated consistency, even if it transpired later that it was wrong! The point being that it is easier to correct something which is consistently 'wrong' than something which is inconsistent. I appreciate that there could be an almighty ding-dong argument about which is right, but someone new to DITA IS NOT interested in that! They just need a steer in a 'sensible' direction. For someone new to DITA, they are going to be confused by obvious inconsistencies. filename.dita mixed in with filename.xml may 'work', but it doesn't necessarily 'make sense'. I just remember trying to pick up a 4GL database application, once. The examples had been created by different folk, with different methodologies, and at different times. I think I spent more time trying to understand why one example did things one way, whilst other examples did seemingly the same things another way, than actually learning how it worked. At the end of the day, it simply adds unnecessary confusion for someone trying to learn DITA. Just be brave and consistent, and use filename.dita throughout! Then blame the Adoption TC when the flak comes! ;-)) ... IMO! <snip/> The consensus from the Adoption TC discussion was to ensure consistency. Not just throughout the Language Spec., but also in all white papers and other publications. A disclaimer can be added to the Architectural Spec. to state that the .dita extension will be used in all examples to promote consistency. However, the use of the .dita extension in examples does not imply that the .xml, or indeed any other extension, is not valid for DITA content. All examples should use the .dita extension without the need for a disclaimer. David J. B. Hollis
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]