Re: [dita] Some practical problems related to packaging

[ekimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 8/26/09 2:56 PM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:

> Seth, I do believe that the motivation for peeling away the base package
> has substantial value, namely, providing the simplest possible setup for
> implementers to get their feet wet and figure out how it all works
> before delving into the daunting complexities.
>  
> Presenting the training stuff separately also has value, since many
> existing and new users will not want to have to wade past a raft of new
> elements and attributes that they never use.
>  
> The problem you identify, Kristen, could best be solved using simplified
> topic types in 1.3, intermediate between <topic> and the current C/T/R
> types.  For now, we may have to tell them that if they want to use the
> sources of the base docs as examples of how it's done, they'll have to
> do so in context of the more extensive package that is equivalent to
> 1.1.

It could also be solved by treating the spec for what it is: a specific
application of DITA that will require its own supporting infrastructure,
including specializations, plugins with schemas and DTDs, processing
extensions, etc.

The nature of DITA is that it cannot be adequately documented by its most
minimal expression.

Or said another way, the DITA specification is itself a technical document
that appropriately requires the tech doc package. I don't see that as a
problem. 

Another solution would be to generalize all the topics to <topic> for the
purposes of packaging with the base module--that's actually the first
compelling real-world use of generalization that I've seen...

Cheers,

E.

----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>