Fwd: LwDITA Draft document

Kris,

I looked over the document and have the following comments.

1. Throughout the document, there is inconsistent use of LwDITA and Lightweight DITA.

2. Is LwDITA considered a stepping stone to full DITA? The document mentions that LwDITA is an entry point, but I don’t see any mention of how or when to move from LwDITA to full DITA.

3. P7, Section 2.1 – I agree with changing the title of section 2.1 to Simplified Structure.

4. P10, Section 3.2 – The list of inline elements does not include underline or preformatted text. Is preformatted text a block element?

5. P10, Section 3.3 – The list of element where @conref is supported include <li>. I wonder why if all <li> must have a <p> and @conref is supported on <p>.

6. P12, Section 3.5 – If I am a new to DITA, I would find this section confusing or overwhelming. I understand the need for specialization, but as a beginner, I’m not sure that I want to know about that at this point in the document. I think this section belongs in Section 5, where the information seems to be duplicated. You could include a reference to Section 5 from 3.

7. P16, Section 4.2.1 – Typo in 3^rd bullet, I think (MS) should be (LMS).

8. P19, Section 5 – This section duplicates section 3.5. I think all of the specialization information should be in one place.

9. P24, Section A.3 – Does LwDITA rely on the @class attribute? It is not in the table of attributes.

Let me know if you have any questions or need further explanations.

Deb Bissantz

Technical Communication Architect/Writer

dbissantz@healthwise.org | www.healthwise.org

208.331.8729 office

Healthwise helps people make better health decisions

dita-lightweight-dita message