RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries [but not really]

["Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

Just what do people think the discussion is at this point?

Is it still packaging?  Because if it is, I'm completely confused.

As both Michael and Jeff have pointed out, packaging is just how
we ship the files.  It is not whether someone can use this or that
file or doctype as a basis for specialization or creation of their
particular DITA application, yet that still seems to be the core
of most of the continued discussion.

If we aren't still talking about packaging, can we change the
subject line (to whatever we're discussion, which I don't really
understand).

If we are talking about packaging, can someone explain how most
of the discussion has anything to do with packaging?

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:keberlein@pobox.com]
> Sent: Monday, 2009 August 24 10:34
> Cc: dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
> 
> Elliot, would you elaborate on the "many uses of DITA" for which task,
> concept, and reference are irrelevant? I think it would help move this
> discussion forward to have concrete examples and use cases.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Kris
> 
> ekimber wrote:
> >
> > Concept, task and reference are not "universal". There are many uses
of DITA
> > for which they are completely irrelevant.
> >
> > That particular breakdown is specific to a particular technical
> > communication practice and philosophy and even that philosophy is
not
> > universal among technical communicators.