RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>

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

Hi Rodolfo,

Keep in mind that for DITA 1.3 there
will be an extremely simplified set of doctypes available for people who
want to start with the minimum. We also provided a minimal doctype in DITA
1.2, but for topic only, and that doesn't seem to be getting much attention
or use.

Generally speaking, the audience of
the spec includes both specializers and authors, and most of the doctypes
you see in DITA are constrained, and don't represent every possible option
to the end user. A good example is the task type in DITA 1.2, which has
a general version that can be used by specializers or authors requiring
more flexibility, as well as a constrained version for use by most authors
directly.

So when you say the standard is getting
more complex every day, I need to understand which behaviors are triggering
that reaction, since there are lots of different motivations on the TC.

- when we add two versions of a task,
explicitly to accomodate direct users as well as specializers, are we making
the standard too complex? We did it in an attempt to simplify things for
end-users, but maybe we just made things worse?
- when we add more conref options, like
range or push, for use directly by end-users, we're certainly making the
standard more complex - but it's not because of a focus on specializers
or implementers, it's directly in response to requests from advanced users.
Which is where the simplified doctypes we're targetting for 1.3 come in,
as an alternative for starter users or occasional authors.

In the example that triggered this discussion,
does it really increase complexity for end-users if we let xref be authored
directly in shortdesc, instead of making authors sneak it in wrapped in
a ph? Making content models more consistent usuaally decreases complexity,
rather than increases it, doesn't it? Unless there are really good reasons
for guiding people down different paths with the different models, which
I don't think is the case anymore on this issue. 

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Total Information Experience (TIE) Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25



From:      
 "Rodolfo M. Raya"
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>
To:      
 <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>,

Date:      
 09/11/2012 10:56 AM
Subject:    
   RE: [dita] Proposal:
Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Sent by:    
   <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org]
On
Behalf
> Of Kristen James Eberlein
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:59 AM
> To: Eliot Kimber
> Cc: dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
>  
> While I'd like to agree that our primary user group of concern is
"specializers"
> and "implementers," I think that for the DITA 1.x-level
releases we have a
> responsibility to look out for other communities, including authors.

IMHO, making "specializers" and "implementers" the
primary user group is a
mistake that leads to a standard that becomes more complex every day and
scares end users that want a simple solution for authoring documentation
in
a structured manner.

I would prefer a standard that is easy to use right out of the box and
allows me to extend and customize if needed. DITA is going the opposite
direction offering too many options to the first time user. 

I used to see DITA as  "start simple and grow as needed"
but that's no
longer the case since the release of version 1.2.

Best regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms       http://www.maxprograms.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dita-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dita-help@lists.oasis-open.org