Re: [dita] RE: Breaking 'Technical Content' specializations into two groups

[Magliery Tom <tom.magliery@justsystems.com>]

I like this idea, too, although I do think it will require quibbling. E.g., we could start with in which partitions you've put MathML and SVG.

mag

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bill Burns <bburns@healthwise.org> wrote:

I like this approach, primarily because it corrals the technology specializations. Is there a more descriptive term for the more general modules? âUtilityâ seems ambiguous. or perhaps thatâs the point.

Â

Bill Burns

Content Architect | Healthwise

bburns@healthwise.org | www.healthwise.org

208.331.6917 (office)Â |Â 208.345.1897 (fax)

Â

Healthwise helps people make better health decisions.

Â

From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Chris Nitchie
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:15 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Breaking 'Technical Content' specializations into two groups

Â

*** External email: use caution ***

As I mentioned on the call today, Iâm suggesting that we break out the general-purpose modules currently labeled âTechnical Contentâ from the more industry-specific domains also included in that package. Hereâs how Iâd organize it:

Â

General-purpose âutilityâ modules, not particularly bound to any industry, vertical, or classification:

• Concept
• Reference
• Task/General Task/taskreq domain
• Glossary-related domains
• Bookmap (and/or the new DITA 2.0 bookmap)
• Abbreviation domain
• Release management domain
• Troubleshooting domain
• SVG Domain

Â

More specific, technology-related specializations:

Â

• Equation domain
• Markup and XML Mention domains
• MathML domain
• Programming domain
• Software domain
• UI Domain

Â

Chris