- 2.3 Growth of DITA
It doesn't make sense to me to insert the summary used in the DITA 1.3 spec; this entire committee note is intended to expand on that summary. I have reworked this topic, however.
- 4.1 What is in it?
I am going to leave the wording as-is. In general, at this point, I think we need to avoid tweaking or wordsmithing --We need to focus on the big areas.
- References to DITA 1.2
Changed to use past tense.
- Elements versus element types
We deliberately avoided using the term "element types" in the first draft of this committee note. The audience for the committee note is less technically astute than the audience of the specification, and we wanted to make the tone (and content) of the document as accessible as possible. However, I then introduced "element types" in some places in the document based on comments from Eliot in the DITAweb review. As Keith commented, this resulted in inconsistent usage.
I've searched the entire document and looked at the usage of "element", "elements", and "element types". It will be notable awkward to use either one approach or another throughout. I think the best approach is to: - Use the term "element types" when in close proximity to the phrase "document types". This will affect the tables and all places where we make reference to "document and element types".
- Use the term "element" or "elements" in general prose.
This will include such usage as the definition of
specialization: "The process of creating a new DITA element or
attribute from an existing element or attribute. The new
element or attribute inherits characteristics from the element
or attribute from which it was specialized, which reduces
design work and enables the reuse of existing
transformations."
- 2.4 Future of DITA
My very first draft of this topic included the following content, which I removed based on a early reviewer's suggestion that he was not sure that there was clear consensus among TC members on the matter. I have reintroduced the original content.
"While work on DITA 2.0 is in the very early stages, there is general consensus among the DITA Technical Committee on the following points:
Architectural redesign
DITA 2.0 will provide an opportunity for the DITA Technical Community to revisit and redesign aspects of the architecture that are less than optimal, such as chunking.
Backwards compatibility
DITA 2.0 will not be backwards compatible. For all the DITA 1.x releases, the DITA Technical Committee has gone to great pains to ensure that we do not add designs or features that might break existing implementations. For DITA 2.0, we plan to relax this restriction, so that we can revisit some early design choices and remove deprecated elements. (We will minimize disruption and provide clear migration paths to ease transition to DITA 2.0.)
Modularity
We will package DITA 2.0 in an even more modular way than DITA 1.3, to further improve users' ability to only get the pieces of DITA that they want."
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 10/28/2015 5:25 PM, Keith
Schengili-Roberts wrote:
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:
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."Cheers!
Keith Schengili-RobertsDITA Information Architect / DITA SpecialistIXIASOFT825 Querbes, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2V 3X1tel + 1 514 279-4942 / toll free + 1 877 279-4942cell + 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? uploadedSubmitter's message
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