Re: [dita] Terminology for the DITA 1.2 spec

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 11/11/09 9:36 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:

> Eliot, it's awfully good of you not to take umbrage at the implication
> that your writing is unclear. That was an unintended side effect of the
> main point about accuracy in the reader depending on readability in
> addition to depending on accuracy in the writer. And the fundamental
> purpose of the topic I wrote (now under review) was to provide an
> overview with all the detailed topics about keys, conref, etc.
> accessible from that one place by means of related-links. It was only in
> conversation with you that we decided to merge it with the conref topic
> conref.dita which you had written. So this is to set the record
> straight, clear your good name as a writer, apologize for the unintended
> slur, and thank you for your gracious response.

No need to apologize. While I am actually a technical writer by training, I
realize that I do not always express complex technical concepts as clearly
as I could. It's also the case that the way I write in a standards context
is very different than I would write in an explanatory context, where I'm
very confident in my ability to write clearly. It's also the case that none
of us have had the time needed to craft the writing as much as we would
like, so even where I could have written more clearly I haven't necessarily
had the time to do so.

I absolutely appreciate the value that everyone brings to the editorial
process--this is an must be a collaborative process. Writing a standard like
this well is a very challenging task because of its complexity and the level
of abstraction required.

Cheers,

Eliot

-- 
Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect
"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
Main: 610.631.6770
www.reallysi.com
www.rsuitecms.com