Eliot, in your discussion on the call you explained "concrete document type" as
a "working document type". Why not call it that? Instead of the
abstract/concrete distinction.
/Bruce
As a follow-up to last week's TC meeting,
a group of us had a telephone call today to discuss (1) the terminology
outlined in the latest draft of the DITA 1.2 spec, and (2) reviewers'
reactions to it.
We discussed the following items:
- The fact that the DITA spec is a hybrid
entity, a mixture of normative information, commentary, and textbook
material. Given the time and resource constraints for DITA 1.2, as well as
the fact that other DITA resources are few and not widely available, this is
not going to change quickly.
- The reality that the DITA TC includes people
from varying backgrounds (standards development, technical communication)
and that affects people's approach to the spec.
- Organization of the terminology topic. Gershon
is going to attempt to create a logical ordering of the terms, if he can do
so by November 6. (If anyone has a interest in helping with this, contact
Gershon.) Our default will be to list the terms in alphabetical
order.
We did not get to
the following items and suggest that they be discussed at a regular TC
meeting:
- Concrete document type
- Do we need this term? Is it a widely
accepted term?
- How is a "Concrete document type" different
from a "DITA document type"
- Local shell
- Content of <note> elements
contentious
- Does the terminology apply to entire spec
(including Lang Ref topics) or only specific topics in the
spec?
For
reference:
Best,
Kris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|