What do you mean by "Grammar file construction"? That sounds like it would be something under the specialization section. Or do you mean something about the organization of the shipped grammar files (in which case perhaps "Grammar file organization")? Or something else?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Robert D Anderson
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:55 AM
To: Kristen James Eberlein
Cc: DITA TC
Subject: Re: [dita] DITA 2.0: How might we reorganize (reformulate?) the spec for DITA 2.0
I wanted to follow up on the discussion from Tuesday, specifically regarding the suggestion that (I'm pretty sure) came from Chris Nitchie.
The suggestion there was about changing how we think about and publish the spec. Rather than using a hard-to-define separation of "Architectural spec" versus "Language spec", much of our content could be organized much more logically into Processing and Grammar.
As I said on the call, I really like that idea. Kris and I found during 1.3 editing that it could be very difficult to make a distinction between what was "Architecture" versus what was "Language". That difficulty doesn't entirely go away with Processing and Grammar, but I think those groupings go a long way to helping us better organize the content. That said - those two distinctions don't cover everything in the specification. I expect that if we make that sort of reorganization, we'll end up with several better focused sections.
I can think of a few good candidates for other major sections of a 2.0 spec, based on sub-sections of the current architectural specification:
- Specialiazation and modularity
- Grammar file construction
Are there any suggestions for additional types of content that exist in the spec (and should continue to exist)? Alternatively, do any of the sections I've listed seem like the wrong direction?
Kristen James Eberlein ---09/06/2016 09:57:56 AM---DITA 1.0: Separate architectural spec and language reference DITA 1.1: " "
From: Kristen James Eberlein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: DITA TC <email@example.com>
Date: 09/06/2016 09:57 AM
Subject: [dita] DITA 2.0: How might we reorganize (reformulate?) the spec for DITA 2.0
Sent by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
DITA 1.0: Separate architectural spec and language reference
DITA 1.1: " "
DITA 1.2: Aggregated archSpec and LangRef
DITA 1.3: " " and three editions
What do we want to consider for DITA 2.0?
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
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: