RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization

[Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>]

As long as we have wording that makes
it explicit that the customization - ie breaking the spec - should be something
you try only where valid extension mechanisms aren't enough.

This is particularly true now that we
have the constraints mechanism in 1.2. There are a whole set of requirements
that led people to customize with 1.1 or 1.2 where now there is a DITA-valid
way to do so.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>

07/14/2009 12:54 PM

To	dita@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization

Thanks for forwarding this Jeff.

So it seems we should call the kind of customization we're including in
the specification "extension" or similar - not "customization."

Then as Dick says, we should include a section on "Customization"
per se at the end that recognizes that "there is no question that
people need and want to customize" DITA in its proper sense, using
generic XML or other techniques beyond those we specify, but "if you
must, you're on your own and not conformant."

--Dana

-----Original Message-----
From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 2:42 PM
To: dita
Subject: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Hamilton [mailto:rlhamilton@frii.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:30 PM
> To: Ogden, Jeff
> Subject: DocBook Customization
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> I'm an observer on the DITA TC, but not a member, so my
> attempt to send the attached response concerning the thread
> on DocBook Customization got bounced.
> 
> Since you were an active participant, I hope you don't mind
> if I send the response to you, instead. If you find it useful,
> feel free to post it on the list. If not, the bit-bucket is
> ok, too:).
> 
> Thanks,
> Dick Hamilton
> rlhamilton@frii.com
> ===============================================================
> I've been following this thread with some interest and have
> to chime in about "DocBook Customization" from the perspective
> of a longtime DocBook user.
> 
> There seems to be an implication in some messages that
> customization is part of the DocBook standard. That is not
> the case. If you change DocBook, the result is no longer
> DocBook.
> 
> That said, there is no question that people need and want
> to customize DocBook, and the DocBook TC has always realized
> this. That's why the design was done with customization in
> mind and why the spec and Definitive Guide both discuss
> customization. But, both clearly state that if you customize,
> you are not conformant.
> 
> So, I agree with Eliot and Jeff that you should dictate against
> what this thread calls "DocBook Customization," in the same
way
> that DocBook dictates against "DocBook Customization." I.e.,
if
> you must, you're on your own and not conformant.
> 
> Dick Hamilton
> ---------------------------------
> XML Press
> XML for Technical Communicators
> http://xmlpress.net/managingwriters.html
> (970) 231-3624
> 
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php