[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
Good day, Bruce. I think I am a little confused by what is being proposed. The
concept of “packages” is not crystal clear to me. Why can packages
not share common information types? Surely I could reuse concept and glossentry
definitions in multiple packages. Assuming that we have base abstract information types in DITA
1.3, there will still be a need to have glossentry topics and book maps in all
packages. We may want to resituate glossentry as a peer specialization to
concept rather than as a specialization of concept itself. I wouldn’t
imagine that the glossentry topic would be part of the abstract layer. Unless I am missing something, I would recommend that we leave the
DITA 1.1 topic types where they are until we have had a chance to introduce the
abstract layer in DITA 1.3. I apologize if I have misunderstood or I am taking the thread
back to points covered in previous conversations. Cheers, Rob Hanna From: Bruce Nevin
(bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com] 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:
Comment? Action? /Bruce |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]