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] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>

So you accept that there can be differences between DITA implementations. But you feel that only one of those variations should be included in the standard.

Is this correct?

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Total Information Experience (TIE) Technology Strategist

From:        "Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
To:        Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
Cc:        <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        09/11/2012 01:46 PM
Subject:        RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>

Please see my new comments below.
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Michael Priestley
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:01 PM
Rodolfo M. Raya
RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>

Hi Rodolfo,

Would you still feel this way even if there were two completely different standards? EG: DITA for Rodolfo, and DITA for Specializers?

RMR: this would be as ridiculous as having two different HTML standards, one for Michael and one for browser developers. We need just one DITA standard.

If that would be acceptable, what is it about combining them into one standard - with two deliverables - that makes the whole unacceptable?

RMR: as said above, we need just one DITA to start with. Those that have special needs can extend, specialize, customize or whatever by following clearly established rules that allow tools to work with plain DITA and customized DITA without interoperability problems.

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