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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

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


Subject: RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries [but not really]



I think there's a couple of questions:

- what do we provide as a downloadable zip
- what do we provide as PDF
- what do we provide as HTML

At the start of this release, many of us were concerned that the continued proliferation of specializations would render DITA too intimidating for new adopters and tool providers. In particular, it's hard to defend DITA as a simple but extensible architecture if we have no downloadable documents that are less than 1000 pages long.

As a compromise between documenting every possible DTD combination and documenting none of them, we agreed on the following:
        - deliver and document a base set of DTDs with minimal domains and minimal markup support. This was at one end of a continuum.
        - deliver and document two specific packages:
                 one roughly representing our existing specialized markup, with extensions for machine industry semantics
                and the other representing the major new specializations for learning and training

As an additional compromise, we agreed to provide the integrated HTML documentation for everything, while continuing to provide separate PDFs for each package. This made sense inasmuch as the PDFs needed to be chunked at a lower level for printability, whereas the HTML needed to be cross-linked for navigability.

So, I think as it currently stands, there are 3 zips, 3 PDFs, and 1 HTML web. I'd like to see the counterproposals summarized like this as well, so I can get a clear idea of what we're choosing between. Then hopefully we can take a look at what the result would be for each choice - ie, take a look at some prototype docs in the different formats to see how truly navigable they are, how big they get, etc.

But we can't keep revisiting the chunking decision every few months until we release. At some point the decision has to stick.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25



"Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>

08/24/2009 12:46 PM

To
<rob@ascan.ca>, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries [but not really]





I am still confused about what we are talking about here and what specific problem we are trying to solve.
 
I asked earlier and was told that we were talking about "packaging".  That is, what .zip file holds what. Is that what we are still talking about?
 
Placing subsets of components into separate packages is just a convenience to allow people to download something less than everything. But since this seems to be causing so much controversy/confusion, perhaps we should abandon the idea of separate packages and just have a single "everything package".  I think OASIS would be happier if we did that anyway.
 
What package contains what components doesn't really change what a user can use, what can be specialized from what, or what can reference what. And assuming tools can use catalogs, the actual filenames and locations don't matter very much either.
 
Or are we talking about something other than packaging?
 
        About the Public IDs and URIs that are used to reference the various files?
 
        About the file and folder names and locations used to hold the files?
 
        About what document type shells are made available in which package or in which folders?
 
        About how the written specification is organized?
 
   -Jeff
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Hanna [mailto:rob@ascan.ca]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:10 PM
> To: Grosso, Paul; dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries [but not
> really]
>
> I think the point is that we are not ready to separate the three
> archetypes from the base specification. In the absence of any semantic
> alternatives, concept, task, and reference should remain within the
> core of the standard for this release.
>
> New users need to reference the information types in order to
> understand how topics are constructed based upon the information they
> represent. Topic alone contains no semantic markup at all. Even if new
> users reject concept, task, and reference within their environment,
> they need to see how these fit in order to develop their own relevant
> specializations. As Tim Grantham said in an earlier post, there ought
> to be few instances where DITA is considered where they could not be
> used.
>
> I believe that with further analysis and discussion that we may be in a
> position to consider the separation of tech pub info types from the
> base in DITA 1.3.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob Hanna
> ------Original Message------
> From: Grosso, Paul
> To: dita
> Subject: RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries [but not
> really]
> Sent: 24 Aug 2009 11:40 AM
>
>
> Just what do people think the discussion is at this point?
>
> Is it still packaging?  Because if it is, I'm completely confused.
>
> As both Michael and Jeff have pointed out, packaging is just how
> we ship the files.  It is not whether someone can use this or that
> file or doctype as a basis for specialization or creation of their
> particular DITA application, yet that still seems to be the core
> of most of the continued discussion.
>
> If we aren't still talking about packaging, can we change the
> subject line (to whatever we're discussion, which I don't really
> understand).
>
> If we are talking about packaging, can someone explain how most
> of the discussion has anything to do with packaging?
>
> paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:keberlein@pobox.com]
> > Sent: Monday, 2009 August 24 10:34
> > Cc: dita
> > Subject: Re: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
> >
> > Elliot, would you elaborate on the "many uses of DITA" for which task,
> > concept, and reference are irrelevant? I think it would help move
> this
> > discussion forward to have concrete examples and use cases.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > ekimber wrote:
> > >
> > > Concept, task and reference are not "universal". There are many
> uses
> of DITA
> > > for which they are completely irrelevant.
> > >
> > > That particular breakdown is specific to a particular technical
> > > communication practice and philosophy and even that philosophy is
> not
> > > universal among technical communicators.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


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