Re: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 8/20/09 12:24 PM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:

> This came up in the spec authoring meeting today.
>  
> The problem: <glossentry> is specialized from <concept>. <task>,
> <concept>, and <reference> are in the TechDocs package. This forces
> <glossentry> etc. to be restricted to the TD package.  But non-TechDocs
> folks need glossaries, and support for them should be in the base.
>  
> Two solutions:
> 
> 1. Accept this. Present it as an unfortunate fait accompli for 1.2
> -- if you want a glossary, you have to use the TD package (or specialize
> your own).
> 2. Move <task>, <concept>, and <reference> back into the base, sans
> TD-specific domain specializations, and include those specializations in
> the TD package. Present this as an interim step toward simplified topics
> being developed by the BusDocs SC.
> 
> Comment? Action?

I prefer option 2: there's nothing obvious about glossentry that is specific
to technical content and in fact glossentry should never have been based on
concept. Since it was, and we can't change that now, I think it strongly
indicates that concept, task, and reference need to stay in base,
unfortunately.

But I could live with 1.

Cheers,

E.


----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>