[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] ditabase
Agreed Chris
On the idea of referencing a list of topics from a map - seems using a submap would be a best practice? A number of tools produce flat submaps from searches based on metadata etc.
Jim
On 2018-04-19 5:55 AM, Chris Nitchie wrote:
All four of these use cases can be accomplished with <topic> as the root element. You don’t need <dita>. This is why I toyed with the idea of removing <dita> a few weeks ago.
The use-case that turned me around was that of referencing a ditabase from a map without a fragment identifier, which should result in all those topics appearing in output as siblings of each other. You can’t do that with <topic> without adding a layer of hierarchy.
Chris
From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:59 PM
To: "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [dita] ditabase
There are several compelling use cases:
- Aggregating small topics, such as message topics
- Used for conref library files
- Creating only one topic shell (assuming that all topic types need the same domains), and using the CMS templates to specify the topic type. IXIASOFT does this by default.
- Being useful for migrating content (WARNING: If the content stays in ditabase, that's ... icky.)
I think removing ditabase would be very intrusive and disruptive.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)On 4/18/2018 8:32 PM, Eliot Kimber wrote:
I can’t agree with the assertion that ditabase is obsolete—it has a necessary utility—Robert provided some compelling use cases from IBM (e.g., 100s of small message topics organized together in a single <dita> document).
I’ve definitely seen the ditabase document type abused as a way to avoid creating local shells because it allows unrestricted topic type nesting—I find that distasteful but it’s not exactly wrong, even if it is a big misguided.
Cheers,
E.
From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Magliery Tom <tom.magliery@justsystems.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM
To: Jim Tivy <jimt@bluestream.com>
Cc: "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [dita] ditabase
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Jim Tivy <jimt@bluestream.com> wrote:
https://www.oxygenxml.com/
dita/styleguide/webhelp- feedback/Artefact/Topics_and_ Information_Types/c_Using_ Ditabase.html
Can we get rid of <dita> for DITA 2.0. We just had another issue here and with Oxygen posting the above we are wondering how long the ecology of tools will continue support for <dita>.
I realize this was discussed a few weeks back and it seemed there was support for <dita> removal.
What would be the easiest upgrade for people with <dita> files? There was some mention of needing a title but users could have an empty title or descriptive title at their option.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------ https://www.oasis-open.org/---------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_ workgroups.php
------------------------------------------------------------ --------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/ apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_ workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]