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

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

Hi Rodolfo,

I don't have any disagreement with the
goals you describe below, with perhaps one caveat: when you say the concept
worked well for DITA 1.0, a lot of people disagreed with you :-) They wanted
versions of the document types that didn't include the software domains,
or supported learning and training elements, or allowed a stem sentence
to introduce a list of steps, or allowed the ability to conref a range
of steps in a task instead of just one at a time, or supported indirection
of links so they could be redirected by reusers.

So each successive version of the standard
has tried to meet those new requirements, without sacrificing the goal
of having a common standard that tools can support with fallthrough for
specializations. 

Some of the enhancements went into their
own document types - so if you want to use the learning and training elements,
for example, you choose a different set of document types than if you want
to just do technical communication. Others couldn't be achieved through
specialization, so had to be achieved through changes to the core architecture.

But a DITA processor that handles only
the basic DITA topic and DITA map artifacts should support, through specialization,
all the content in all the document types, without content loss. 

So with DITA 1.3, we're trying to provide
an explicit starting point for simplified DITA specialization and content
creation, that eliminates redundant functions that have built up over time,
and is even easier to get started with and support than DITA 1.0.

My question is: given that we have users
who need the full range of DITA 1.2 function, and other users who want
a specific subset, what mechanism could the DITA TC consider for reconciling
these demands?

I suggest you take a look at what we're
proposing for a lightweight DITA starter set here:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/LimitedDitaProfile

The strawman proposal starts under the
heading "Lightweight DITA".

If after reading that you still think
that it would be unacceptable to provide both full and lightweight versions
of the standard, but must pick one, let me know. But I think it would be
useful for you to see how we're thinking about the issue currently. 

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 02:23 PM
Subject:    
   RE: [dita] Proposal:
Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Sent by:    
   <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

I’m saying that there should
be one standard that is flexible enough to allow customizations that follow
well established rules. That concept worked well for DITA 1.0, I don’t
see why it would not work for future DITA versions as well.
 
The common goal should be
to design a standard that tools could support even when users need to work
with a customized version. 
 
Design DITA in a way that
a publishing engine, a CMS or a translation tool can handle despite any
custom enhancement added by the user.
 
Two browsers may show the
same HTML page with a different layout. The difference in layout should
not matter if the content reaches the audience in its entirety. 
 
It should also be possible
to process a  DITA document with or without custom enhancements without
the tool used for the task noticing the difference. We may see a difference
in rendering, but there should be no content loss caused by customization.
 
If in addition to what is
expressed above the DITA standard can be noticeably simplified and still
offer something that is useable off the shelf without requiring customization,
then it would be a great improvement.
 
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms       http://www.maxprograms.com
 
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
 
So you accept that there can be differences
between DITA implementations. But you feel that only one of those variations
should be included in the standard.

Is this correct? 

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:        Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, 
Cc:        <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        09/11/2012
01:46 PM 
Subject:        RE:
[dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>

---

Hi, 
  
Please see my new comments below.
  
Regards, 
Rodolfo 
--
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms       http://www.maxprograms.com
  
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:01 PM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
  
Hi Rodolfo, 

Would you still feel this way even if there were two completely different
standards? EG: DITA for Rodolfo, and DITA for Specializers?

RMR: this would be as ridiculous as having two different HTML standards,
one for Michael and one for browser developers. We need just one DITA standard.

If that would be acceptable, what is it about combining them into one standard
- with two deliverables - that makes the whole unacceptable?

RMR: as said above, we need just one DITA to start with. Those that have
special needs can extend, specialize, customize or whatever by following
clearly established rules that allow tools to work with plain DITA and
customized DITA without interoperability problems.