Comments - Lightweight DITA: An Introduction uploaded

["Dr. Stanley Doherty" <stan@modularwriting.com>]

Hi --

Commendable work here . . . this reads better each time I revisit it. 

Stan 
---------------------------------------

A few comments on the PDF posted yesterday:

PDF/5: In the Note, would it not be better to say, "Please note that details WILL change . . . "

PDF/6: The "extended profile" definition makes sense, but precludes PanDoc -- which isn't really a variant of GFM. 

PDF/7: The definition of "slug" needs more explanation. Is it a URL-friendly version of an XDITA topic title? HDITA? MDITA? Perhaps a quick example might help. 

PDF/8: Still feels to me that we need to be more  direct about selling LwDITA to non-XML shops. LwDITA does make content in additional authoring formats available to the same XML-based publishing pipeline that DITA 1.3 uses (the ecosystem). These additional authoring formats (XDITA, MDITA, and HDITA) do not interoperate with existing non-XML publishing pipelines. For authoring communities NOT interested in working in an XML-based ecosystem, LwDITA is of limited appeal. 

PDF/10: Suggest adding RST to the list of possible future mappings. 

Devils advocate question: We call LwDITA markup "structured" because it is validated (ultimately) by an XML parser. If I put unsupported markup into an MDITA or HDITA document, the parser will invalidate it -- yes? 

In general -- love the examples. Thank you. 

PDF20: The sentence "The MDITA core profile aligns with the GitHub Flavored Markdown Spec" is a little squooshy. Does "align" mean that 100% of the markup in the GFM spec (including all the whitelisted HTML markup) is supported by MDITA or does "align" mean that MDITA markup is consistent with some subset of the GFM spec? It's an interoperability clarification. Will every valid GFM topic work in LwDITA? PDF/28 ditto.

PDF/21: Still a bit confused about the usefulness of MDITA maps. Can I reference them from an XDITA map? build them alone?