dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:30:33 -0400
Hi Rodolfo,
How would the separate modules be available?
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 03:22 PM
Subject:
RE: [dita] Proposal:
Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Sent by:
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi,
I’ve read the wiki and was
fully aware of the “lightweight DITA” initiative before sending my first
email today. Although I don’t participate in weekly meetings, I read the
emails sent to the TC list.
I personally consider a mistake
to release a “light” and a “full” version of DITA 1.3. That’s
my personal view.
I would release something
simple and useable as “DITA 1.3”. Bells and whistles can be made
available as separate modules that users would pick if needed.
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 3:42 PM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
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.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]