[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]-- Correction
Correction: The content of the Technical Content package should be described as "Everything except Learning & Training". Kris Kristen James Eberlein wrote: > I thought that the current consensus was to deliver four packages: > > * Base > * Technical Content (which includes base) > * Learning and Training > * Everything > > My assumption was that each package would include the relevant DTD + > the documentation. For *each* package, the documentation would be > provided in the following formats: > > * PDF > * HTML > * DITA source files > > Kris > > Michael Priestley wrote: >> >> 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 >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]