Re: [dita-adoption] dita.xml.org resource about DITA tools

["David J. B. Hollis" <dhollis@AandOConsultancy.ltd.uk>]

Hi

My first thoughts were that Bob Doyle has done a pretty good job on a  
comprehensive tool round up, and how/why should we try to duplicate  
this effort? My main criticism, however, would be that Bob refrains  
from being at all critical about any tool's suitability for use with  
DITA. This can be contrasted with Eliot Kimber's 'Dr. Macro' blog  
concerning tools: 'All Tools Suck!' http://drmacros-xml-rants.blogspot.com

If this could somehow be grafted into the dita.xml.org wiki, then  
there is the opportunity for anyone to add their comments about a  
tool's suitability, or otherwise, for use with DITA. To that end, the  
TC becomes a channel for marshalling resources & appropriate comments.

However, I do like Troy's idea of setting some form of standard which  
a tool should achieve. This is surely what a Standards Body should be  
about?

Here's some initial suggestions:

1. Which version(s) of the DTD/Schema are supported?

2. Does the tool use the Open Toolkit at all, and how has it been  
modified?

3. If the Open Toolkit is incorporated, which version is provided?

4. If the Open Toolkit is incorporated, is it available for use by an  
external publishing workflow?

5. Does the tool support XML Catalogs?

6. Does the tool support Specialisations?

7. Does the tool support content, Map & Bookmap editing?

8. Does the tool support 'on-the-fly' processing to easily see how the  
current Topic may be rendered?

9. Does the tool offer any CMS integration?


Many of the above would need a 0-10 scale, or similar, rather than a  
simplistic yes/no.

OK, a Tool Standard and Review Process is not going to be achieved  
overnight, but the wiki approach could suffice in the interim.

Hmmm, 'Tool Standard' needs to be added to 'Opportunities'! ;-)

David


> Hi:
>
> <quote>
> I wonder if the Adoption Committee has the resources to do a regular
> analysis of tools and how well they support DITA.
> </quote>
>
> I think this is a great idea. As there are an increasing number of  
> tools, and to keep our resource commitments under control, I have a  
> variation on the idea of a regular tool review.
>
> Maybe we could create a DITA Adoption "Gold Circle" for tools that  
> meet a hard core, minimal set of objective requirements. The tools  
> would need to meet the requirements in order to be considered the  
> top tools in use for adoption, tools that we would recommend given  
> our real-world criteria.
>
> We could perform a minimal set of reviews of the current top tools  
> and assign an initial "badge of approval" for the tools that pass.  
> After that, we can encourage tool vendors to apply. Otherwise, we'll  
> be performing a large set of regular reviews for tools that probably  
> don't meet the requirements.
>
> In other words, going forward, if a tool vendor wants our badge of  
> approval, they need to apply, after reviewing our publicly posted  
> requirements. If they don't meet the requirements, don't apply.
>
> I would think that vendors could get some marketing mileage out of  
> our seal of approval. Plus, we would gain more visibility as a body  
> dedicated to easing DITA adoption, a proverbial win-win.
>
> There's more to discuss, so maybe we can migrate this discussion to  
> the wiki, but I have to run. :-)
>
> Troy Klukewich
> Information Architect
> Oracle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:keberlein@pobox.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:04 AM
> To: dita-adoption@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dita-adoption] dita.xml.org resource about DITA tools
>
>
> http://dita.xml.org/resource/dita-tools-from-a-to-z
>
> I wonder if the Adoption Committee has the resources to do a regular
> analysis of tools and how well they support DITA. As someone  
> mentioned,
> it might help push vendors to do more complete implementations.
>
> Kris
>
> Kristen James Eberlein