[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Task model message and ditabase
If we have more than one ditabase in the set of doctype
shells that are distributed as part of the DITA 1.2 spec, what would we name
them? The top tag will be <dita>, but what will the informal names,
filenames, and Public IDs be? Some not completely serious suggestions: ditabase (strict task) ditabase2 (general task) ditabaseWithStrictTask ditabaseWithGeneralTask ditabaseForTechnicalContent
(strict task) ditabaseForBase (general task,
but without the other domains from Technical Content) ditabaseWithGeneralTaskAndLoseTopicNestingExceptForGlossentryWhichIsStrict . . . > -----Original Message----- > From: Su-Laine Yeo
[mailto:su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:29 PM > To: DITA TC > Subject: [dita] Task model message and ditabase > > Hi everyone, > > Following up to today's phone discussion on whether
ditabase should use > the loose task model or the strict task model by
default: > > I think it would be very helpful, and in the spirit
of ditabase, to > ship a version of the ditabase DTD in which the
looser task model is > allowed. Ditabase is useful for conversion, and so
is the loose task > model. Actually I can't think of a common use case
in which someone > would use ditabase and appreciate the stricter task
model at the same > time. If you're concerned enough about structural
purity to use the > strict task model, you probably also want to use
maps rather than > ditabase to assemble your topics. > > > Although people could always create their own
version of the ditabase > DTD which allows the looser task model, this would
be one more item on > the very long to-do list for people who are
converting to DITA. Tool > vendors could create the looser ditabase DTD, but
unless all tool > vendors give the DTD the same name this would not be
a clean solution > for adopters, right? > > At this point I don't have a strong opinion on
whether we should keep > ditabase.dtd loose, or whether we should tighten
ditabase.dtd and add a > new DTD called generalDitabase.dtd . > > Regarding the wording in the language reference that
describes <task>, > should we continue discussion on the mailing list or
should I put > suggestions on the wiki here: http://wiki.oasis- > open.org/dita/LanguageReference ? I proposed some
rewordings earlier: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00084.html
but only > JoAnn commented on them. > > --------------------------------------------- > Background from today's agenda: > > 4. New ITEM: Problems with the task model (new
question from JoAnn) > * http://lists.oasis- > open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00080.html (JoAnn) > * http://lists.oasis- > open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00083.html (Kimber) > * http://lists.oasis- > open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00097.html
(Priestley reply to Steffen) > * http://lists.oasis- > open.org/archives/dita/200909/msg00104.html
(Eberlein, final > assessment?) > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > Su-Laine Yeo > Interaction Design Specialist > JustSystems Canada, Inc. > Office: 778-327-6356 > syeo@justsystems.com > www.justsystems.com > |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]