Two key issues:|
- Who do we anticipate being the potential users of the base
- Michael, I want you to look at the current contents of the
reference material for both the base and technical content version. Is
this as you have been envisioning it?
Michael Priestley wrote:
The point of a separate base package
is to provide the bare minimum of DITA support - just topic, map, basic
So absolutely everything else gets
out to another package - and since we've only got two other packages,
means they either go into tech docs or learning and training.
I'm fine with renaming the tech doc
package to something else, if it helps - even "key specializations"
if that would do the trick. But if we move any specializations into the
base package, we undermine the point of having it.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
I am in favor of Bruce’s
recommendation. What is the problem with stating that concept, task,
reference are key specializations in the DITA standard? Why should they
be relegated to technical communication only? I just don’t see the
Even if there is a All
package, we’re not including information about task, concept, and
information types in the base architectural specification, but only in
the arch spec for technical communication.
I’ve never been in favor
this split and would strongly prefer that we include task, concept,
and glossary in the base architectural specification. That would leave
us with the machine industry specialization, which is, of course,
relevant for many outside the machine industry, and the various domains
(software, ui, programming, machine industry, safety hazard). Also
Why is bookmap considered relevant only for technical communication.
probably less relevant there and more relevant for DocBook aficionados.
Since I’m writing the
comm arch spec content and the topic content, I’d be very happy to
task, concept, reference, and glossary to the base arch spec. I could
a statement that these may primarily relate to product documentation
I really don’t think that’s true.
From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin)
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:24 AM
Subject: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
in the spec authoring meeting today.
<glossentry> is specialized from <concept>. <task>,
and <reference> are in the TechDocs package. This forces
etc. to be restricted to the TD package. But non-TechDocs folks need
glossaries, and support for them should be in the base.
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).
<task>, <concept>, and <reference> back into the
sans TD-specific domain specializations, and include those
in the TD package. Present this as an interim step toward simplified
being developed by the BusDocs SC.