Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Re: Section on specialization in Committee Note Revision 19

["John Hunt" <john_hunt@us.ibm.com>]

Hi -

I'm finally getting around to reading
draft #19 all the way through, as well. 

Overall, this looks very good to me.
I found the examples of cross-format authoring and content especially helpful.
They open a lot of possibilities, where you might blend a highly-structured
template, say for a lesson plan, with less-structured content about the
individual lessons (say authored by an actual teacher). I'm also glad to
see the sections on specialization and the examples on content reuse.

I did read this from a POV of how will
these proposed content structures get enforced (the old validation question).
While for XDITA, we have the DTD, there's not much mentioned about how
we'd do this for the H or M versions. I wonder if there's an opportunity
here to apply some of the "lint checking" approaches used in
the dev world for _javascript_, etc.? For example, any pull request for the
_javascript_ I submit for a new product tour automatically goes thru lint
checks, which run may reject the submission based on a wide range of criteria.
Might be something we could quite directly extend to make checks for "valid"
HDITA or MDITA.

Thanks to all the SC members for the
good on this.

John
___________________________________
John Hunt
Senior Technical Content Architect 
IBM Collaboration Solutions | User Experience: Design and Information Excellence
4502 S. Miami Blvd, Durham, NC 27703
john_hunt@us.ibm.com



From:      
 Keith Schengili-Roberts
<keith.roberts@ixiasoft.com>
To:      
 "dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org"
<dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 09/18/2017 11:41 AM
Subject:    
   [dita-lightweight-dita]
Re: Section on specialization in Committee Note Revision 19
Sent by:    
   <dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Here are my recommended changes/suggestions
for the Committee Note:

Abstract section: 
Suggest changing the phrase that says LwDITA has "fewer features"
to "a more restricted feature set" instead. (This mimics Stan's
comment on this same section).

Status section, 2nd para:
Final line is missing the URL for the DITA TC web page (which is: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=dita).

1.2 Terminology section:
The Markdown-specific term "ATX headers" is mentioned in this
section, but it appears nowhere else in the document. Suggest it be dropped.

2 Why Lightweight DITA? Para 3:
"LwDITA can provide this mapping" -> "LwDITA provides
this mapping"

3 What is Lightweight DITA? Para 3:
Typo: "individualsthat" -> "individuals that"

4.2 Elements in the LwDITA map:
Typo: "super script" -> "superscript"

4.5 New multimedia elements:
"Loop automatically seeks back the start of audio..." is awkward.
Suggest: "Loop automatically returns to the start of audio..."

5.3.2 Examples of MDITA topics:
Minor error in code example: "! [Image](remote.png)" -> "![Image](remote.png)"
(remove space between exclamation mark and following left square bracket).

Cheers!

-

Keith Schengili-Roberts
Market Researcher and DITA Evangelist
 
IXIASOFT
825 Querbes, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2V 3X1
tel  + 1 514 279-4942  /  toll free + 1 877 279-4942
robertsk@ixiasoft.com /  www.ixiasoft.com

---

From: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
<dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Tim Grantham
<tim@precisioncontent.com>
Sent: September 18, 2017 10:31:28 AM
To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita-lightweight-dita] Section on specialization in Committee
Note Revision 19 
 
A couple of comments on this section:

• “With some limitations and rules, LwDITA allows for the creation of new element types and attributes that are explicitly and formally derived from existing types.” Can we answer the implied question directly, e.g. “LwDITA follows the same specialization architecture as DITA 1.3, though there are some limitations and rules.”
• I found the example for the rule that “Authors cannot add elements from DITA 1.3 to an XDITA specialization…” to be a little confusing. For example, I thought at first the statement “…the DITA 1.3 element <object> cannot be the base for a similar specialization.” was saying that one could not create a specialized element called <training-video> from the DITA 1.3 <object> element. But, of course, you can… in DITA 1.3. Suggested rewrite: “Authors cannot add elements from DITA 1.3 to an XDITA specialization. For example, LwDITA authors cannot create a specialized element <training-video> from the DITA 1.3 element <object>. They must create it from the LwDITA element <video>.
   
  I have reviewed the entire document and these are the only suggestions I have for changes. The Note looks very good.
   
  Regards,
  Tim.
   
  Tim Grantham
  Director of Publishing Solutions
  Precision Content Authoring Solutions Inc.