OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita-adoption message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Filename extensions


Adoption TC Meeting 28th jan.

4. Business

     8. ITEM: Discuss David Hollis's review of the DITA language  
specification sections and RDA's responses


 From email D Hollis - R Anderson, 11th Jan.

<snip>

>> xref
>>
>> filename.xml# ... should that be filename.dita? Can we have
>> consistency & examples of best practice, please?!
>
> The architectural spec makes clear that .xml and .dita should both be
> supported by DITA applications, though it does not rule out other
> extensions. I know people on both sides who insist their choice is  
> correct,
> as well as those who insist you should mix both freely. I find that  
> makes
> it a bit more difficult to be consistent ... any more thoughts on it?
> Personally, in my life, I use .dita all the time ... but I know of  
> tools
> that create them each way.

I once worked for someone who advocated consistency, even if it  
transpired later that it was wrong! The point being that it is easier  
to correct something which is consistently 'wrong' than something  
which is inconsistent.

I appreciate that there could be an almighty ding-dong argument about  
which is right, but someone new to DITA IS NOT interested in that!  
They just need a steer in a 'sensible' direction.

For someone new to DITA, they are going to be confused by obvious  
inconsistencies. filename.dita mixed in with filename.xml may 'work',  
but it doesn't necessarily 'make sense'.

I just remember trying to pick up a 4GL database application, once.  
The examples had been created by different folk, with different  
methodologies, and at different times. I think I spent more time  
trying to understand why one example did things one way, whilst other  
examples did seemingly the same things another way, than actually  
learning how it worked.

At the end of the day, it simply adds unnecessary confusion for  
someone trying to learn DITA.

Just be brave and consistent, and use filename.dita throughout! Then  
blame the Adoption TC when the flak comes! ;-))

... IMO!

<snip/>


The consensus from the Adoption TC discussion was to ensure  
consistency. Not just throughout the Language Spec., but also in all  
white papers and other publications.

A disclaimer can be added to the Architectural Spec. to state that  
the .dita extension will be used in all examples to promote  
consistency. However, the use of the .dita extension in examples does  
not imply that the .xml, or indeed any other extension, is not valid  
for DITA content.

All examples should use the .dita extension without the need for a  
disclaimer.


David J. B. Hollis


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]