2.3 Growth of DITA
Addressing JoAnn's comment within this section, why don't we simply insert the straightforward summary describing the distinctions between the editions used in the DITA 1.3 specification? Specifically, the following:
Addressing JoAnn's comment within this section, why don't we simply insert the straightforward summary describing the distinctions between the editions used in the DITA 1.3 specification? Specifically, the following:
Base edition
The base edition contains topic, map, and subject scheme map. It is the smallest edition; it is designed for application developers and users who need only the most fundamental pieces of the DITA framework.
Technical content edition
The technical content edition includes the base architecture and the specializations usually used by technical communicators: concept, task, and reference topics; machine industry task; troubleshooting topic; bookmap; glossaries; and classification map. It is the medium-sized edition; it is designed for authors who use information typing and document complex applications and devices, such as software, hardware, medical devices, machinery, and more.
All-inclusive edition
The all-inclusive edition contains the base architecture, the technical content pieces, and the learning and training specializations. It is the largest edition; it is designed for implementers who want all OASIS-approved specializations, as well as users who develop learning and training materials.
Is there a clear distinction between the usage of "elements" vs. "element types"? They appear to be used synonymously within the document. Usage ought to be consistent and I note that the document as a whole bounces between using "elements" and "element
types" for what appears to be the same thing.
Since this document focuses on DITA 1.3, shouldn't any references to DITA 1.2 use past tense to avoid confusion? (Yes, I know it will continue to be used post DITA 1.3, but am thinking strictly in terms of the context of this document). For example, I
suggest rewording the following sentence:
However, although the number of elements types more than doubled from 1.0 to 1.2, most users will never use (or even see) the majority of the new elements.
to:
However, although the number of elements types more than doubled from 1.0 to 1.2, most users have never used (or even seen) the majority of the new elements.
2.4 Future of DITA
Given that members of OASIS have gone on the record publicly as to what they intend for the future direction of DITA 2.0, why not mention it here? At the very least mention that the intention is to introduce architectural changes and that it will not be compatible with 1.x.
4.1 What is in it?
I find the phrase "alarm clearing" relating to the troubleshooting topic type odd, though I note that the same phrase is used in the DITA 1.3 specification. Also, using "troubleshooting" to help describe the topic
type of the same name rankles the editor in me. Suggested rephrasing: "A specialized topic designed to address and solve specific problems a user may encounter."
Keith Schengili-Roberts
DITA Information Architect / DITA Specialist
IXIASOFT
825 Querbes, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2V 3X1
tel + 1 514 279-4942 / toll free + 1 877 279-4942
cell + 1 647-472-7367
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kristen Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:37 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Groups - DITA 1.3: Why Three Editions? uploaded
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:37 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Groups - DITA 1.3: Why Three Editions? uploaded
Submitter's message
Working draft 03
-- Kristen Eberlein
Working draft 03
-- Kristen Eberlein
| Document Name:
DITA 1.3: Why Three Editions? No description provided. Download Latest Revision Public Download Link Submitter: Kristen Eberlein Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC Folder: Position Papers Date submitted: 2015-10-28 08:36:45 Revision: 2 |