[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: On topics
N.B. The following represents my personal opinion only. In preparation for today's DocBook TC meeting, Bob put together a list of relevant threads[1] (thanks, Bob!) and I've gone back over those threads, the proposals, and my own notes. In the intervening months, I've also had more time to think about authoring methodologies. "Topics" in one form or another have been a perpetual topic. Old timers will tell you we used to talk about it in the Davenport days when some really bright guys from Novell had all sorts of ideas about authoring help systems in DocBook. That must have been circa 1995. As a general rule, if someone asks for markup "X" and DocBook already has markup "Y" that can be used for the same purpose without too much tag abuse, we tend to encourage the requestor to use "Y" instead. The proposals for topics, as far as markup goes, all seem to be isomorphic, or nearly isomorphic, to article or section. And lots of folks have demonstrated that it is possible to write modular, topic-based documentation in DocBook using those elements. There are some wrinkles in the actual RFE[2] that have to do with modifying content models and effective searching with particular tools. I'm not quite sure how to address those, and as much as I'd like to help SolBook remain a strict DocBook subset, it's not clear to me that they those are processing expectations so broadly understood and common that they warrant a change to the DocBook standard. The other motivating factor, I think, is the popularity of DITA. Adding a "topic" element to keep up with DITA, as noted above, is technically unnecessary. This seems particularly the case because when I mention the other DITA features that we could add, like scoped IDs and conref, smart DITA users tell me "oh, no, [insert some reason about utility or complexity] don't do that." If it's technically unnecessary then we must be considering doing it for social, political, or other non-technical grounds. On those grounds, I'd rather not. I think the topic-oriented methodology tends to produce poorer quality documentation anyway[3] so I'm not sure how to sell adding it to DocBook as a feature. At the end of the day, I think there's a chorus of voices in the DocBook community suggesting that adding topic to DocBook V5.0 would be a mistake. I'm inclined to add my voice to that chorus. Now the question of how to build better modular documentation with DocBook, implementing some sort of variation on the "map" theme, does seem like it has some support and does seem like a good idea. I think it'd be great if someone built two or three or ten of those so we could see which ones actually work best for DocBook. Then maybe we could think about standardizing it. My two cents. Be seeing you, norm [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/200702/msg00002.html [2] https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1097183&group_id=21935&atid=384107 [3] http://norman.walsh.name/2007/02/05/painting -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | simple as possible, but no simpler. Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]