[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] My increasing concerns about LwDITA and template-based specialization
|
I feel quite strongly that it is important to have a non-proprietary specialization mechanism available in the LwDITA spec if class-based specialization
is not supported. If we are targeting SMEs as a primary user of LwDITA than I believe it is important to have the capability to present SMEs with a tagging vocabulary that is familiar to the SME and that provides adequate guidance during authoring. This has
always been the strongest argument for specialization in my opinion. We shouldn’t be targeting the specialization mechanism at the SME where simplification is the main goal. The SME will always be able to create templates
for authoring without the need for specialization. Specialization is always going to require a thorough understanding of information architecture regardless of how simple it is to perform specialization. Just because it is simpler doesn’t mean that it should
be a common task in most authoring environments. In my opinion, the development of new tags and structures to support specialization is no different than supporting the DITAval vocabulary for conditional
processing. My two cents… Cheers, Rob Hanna From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Carlos Evia Dear Kris and all, I don't have strong feelings about the specialization mechanism being a part of LwDITA. I am used to it because I have seen it as a component of our work in the subcommittee since day one. To be honest, the promise of simplified specialization
is sweet, but I have previously expressed concern about the spaghetti topics that users could create following the template-based mechanism. We have seen a demo of those with the marketing draft, which probably is useful for its authors, but a little too complex
to be called lightweight. Don pointed out that users can create such spaghetti topic types now with DITA 1.x's specialization mechanism, and that is right... but those don't come with the "lightweight" label. I defer defense of the specialization mechanism to Michael as its original designer. I support Michael's decision as his co-chair, but keep my concerns about the lightweight nature of topic types created under this specification/tool. Best, Carlos
-- Carlos Evia, Ph.D. Director of Professional and Technical Writing Associate Professor of Technical Communication Department of English Center for Human-Computer Interaction Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112 (540)200-8201 On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]