RE: [dita] Two proposals for nested sections

["Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>]

Indi: I don't agree that it is best to force your structure into DITA by just using elements that have the same structure but different semantics. For example, a title is not just a kind of phrase. It is a title and DITA already has an element for titles. Similarly, a section is not a kind of list item. It is a kind of section and DITA already has an element for section. The \problem with just using tags that "kind of fit" the structure is that you must do a bunch of processing overrides telling various tools not to treat your section/list item like a list but rather like a section and your phrase/title as a phrase but actually as a title. Over times as you may change tools you must continually update your tools to remind them of your proprietary overrides of DITA semantics. Specialization is about saving work by getting processing for free: not making work by turning some processing off and other processing on.

 

As per another email, I don't believe that usability is an issue at all. DITA allows arbitrary nesting of content  Here's an example output from the DITA toolkit:

 

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-dita2/

 

That's one long, deeply nested document authored in DITA. DITA does not really enforce or even strictly encourage writers to avoid nesting or narrative content. Michael and I aren't even really disagreeing on appropriate output. We're asking what the authoring process should be to get to that output.

---

From: France Baril [mailto:France.Baril@ixiasoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:26 AM
To: Michael Priestley; David Brainard; Indi Liepa
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Two proposals for nested sections

I have not followed the whole thread, I just tried to find the source of the discussion before coming up with an answer. My conclusion is that I don't see why sections are needed to specialize the example that triggered this whole thread (see my proposed solution below - one of many).

 

I have met some cases where I was tempted to add extra section levels. After looking at these issues with a big question mark over my head for a while, I always found solutions that were, in the end, more satisfying. My own point of vue for now is that the current model should stay as is, because it works semantically and it helps to reinforce some minimal usability rules.

 

Reusable Learning Object (topic/topic RLO/topic)
   Information (topic/p - or topic/section if many p per info)

   Information (topic/p - or topic/section if many p per info)
   Questions (topic/ul RLO/questions) --> XSL or CSS adds "Questions" as the title!!!
      Question title (topic/li RLO/question) followed by (topic/ph RLO/questiontitle)
         Para (topic/p)
         Para (topic/p)
         List (topic/ol RLO/ol) followed by li+
         Para (topic/p)
      Question title (topic/li RLO/question) followed by (topic/ph RLO/questiontitle)
         Para (topic/p)
         Para (topic/p)
         List (topic/ol) followed by li+
         Para (topic/p)

      Question title (topic/li RLO/question)followed by (topic/ph RLO/questiontitle)
         Para (topic/p)
         Para (topic/p)
         Table (topic/table RLO/questiontable) followed by table elements
         Para (topic/p)

---

From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: 7 novembre 2005 22:56
To: France Baril; David Brainard; Indi Liepa
Subject: Fw: [dita] Two proposals for nested sections

I'm getting the sense that Paul and I are deadlocked, and I'd welcome some additional input on the thread, even if it's to tell me I'm crazy. If you haven't been following the thread, Paul wants to add at least one level of subsections to topic; my original suggestion was to rechunk his design (ie treat them as nested topics rather than nested sections); my fallback proposal was to create an entirely new base type, same level as topic, that allows nesting divisions (and can even embed topics if necessary).

Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect
SWG Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
----- Forwarded by Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM on 11/07/2005 10:45 PM -----

Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA

11/07/2005 10:38 PM

To	"Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
cc	dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	RE: [dita] Two proposals for nested sections

"Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com> wrote on 11/07/2005 07:14:02 PM:

> But it will make your life as spec editor much harder (as well as
> making the lives of readers harder). According to my understanding
> of the proposal, we would have to go through the entire DITA spec
> and everywhere it says "topic" (as in maps point to topics through
> "topicref" elements), we would have to say: "topic or thingee"
> (depending on what we call the thingees).

We went through a similar change earlier changing "topic type or map type" to "structural type".

>The topicref attribute
> would be a misnomer because it could point to topics or thingees.

It can already point to maps, PDFs, and websites, so it's arguably already a misnomer. If necessary we can introduce a domain specialization for <articleref>

> We'll have to add "thingee" to the "type" attribute.

I'm suggesting it will be a base type, same as map and topic. And same as map and topic, when an element already exists in topic, we could just keep the topic class attribute.

>What module
> will the shared elements be in? That seems like a lot of painful
> reworking to me.

Since <article> would contain all the same elements as topic plus some additional ones, the shared elements would be in the topic module files (topic.mod etc.).

>It also implies that things with a certain
> organization are "topics" (even if they nest deeply!) whereas things
> with a slightly different organization (even if they have only one
> level of nesting) are not topics! They aren't articles. So I don't
> know what to call them.

This is the crux of our problem. I can propose all the compromises I want, but you and I seem to fundamentally disagree on the nature of a topic in DITA. So regardless of whether my proposal addresses your immediate issue, I suspect you will not be satisfied with anything short of changing the current definition of topic.

For me it comes down to how much control we put in the hands of the map author versus the content author. On the one hand, I want the content author to have considerable freedom in how they author content: one per file or multiple per file, nested or flat, etc. On the other hand I want the map author to have considerable freedom in how they reuse and integrate content: whether it's in one file or many, nested or flat etc. The topic is a handshake between the two formats: no matter how complex the content gets, it will be consumable in topic-sized chunks that have a maximum complexity determined by the limited nesting depth of topic.

The topic is also the unit of reuse in design and processing, allowing for shared design elements and processing modules at the topic level, across multiple complex document types and applications.

Changing the size of the basic unit of reuse - on both the content, design, and processing dimensions - is not trivial. Adding even one level of nesting increases the potential complexity of a topic exponentially, with a corresponding decrease in the potential for reuse across document type and system boundaries. Allowing unlimited nesting destroys the entire idea of a topic, in the DITA architecture - the unit of reuse becomes essentially unlimited in its complexity.

I would rather simply preserve the existing architecture; my compromise proposal is article as a peer of topic. You would rather allow unlimited nesting of sections in topic; your compromise proposal is to add one level of nesting. It sounds like neither of our compromises is acceptable to the other. Perhaps the only thing we agree on is that we disagree. I suspect we need input from others, and ultimately a decision from the TC.

Michael Priestley