Don,
Having a liaison is a great idea.
The liaison could be from the DITA for the Web SC or from the
TC-level. Either works for me.
Mark Lewis
From: Don Day (LbW)
[mailto:donday@learningbywrote.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:26 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] microXML and the future of DITA
This appears to be an emerging standards discussion that
will make future use of Web standards in DITA dicey if not managed reasonably:
http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/microxml.html
(and check the follow-up post as well)
For one, it would be nice if future HTML5 editors that were also microXML
compliant could actually support DITA topic authoring. Likewise, it would be
nice if HTML5 could evolve to support a default "topic" that DITA 2.0
could live with as a common base type. It would be nice if class-based
extension could be retained, of course, although how we'd use that without a
DTD or Schema beats me--I think specialized content literally on the Web is
doomed outside of XML 1.0. Finally, it would be nice if microXML would support
a formal content reference mechanism so that conref and topicref processing
ideals could be used to aggregate content dynamically--I don't see anything in
James's discussion that supports that use of microXML.
Have any of the DITA TC been party to this discussion on the XML-dev
list? I'm thinking that creating a liaison/intervention with the W3C might be
useful for the DITA TC at this point, at least so that we can ensure some
degree of common architecture when the DITA 2.0 effort begins. What do you
think?
--
"Where is
the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the
knowledge we have lost in information?"