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] Review of Lightweight DITA

Hi Dawn, a few quick thoughts - I'l try to get them in order.

I agree information typing is key for many DITA scenarios. However, those information types won't always correspond to Concept, Task, and Reference. One of the activities we went through in designing and selecting the elements in topic was to look at what we needed to support specializations in various content disciplines, including marketing and training.

One of the earlier iterations of LwDITA did include specializations for Concept, Task, and Reference - but the challenge was that those weren't necessarily the specializations that mattered to the groups we were looking to for adoption. And if we started adding other specializations, then the specification would quickly stop being lightweight.

I hope that what we can do is release a set of example (non-canonical) specializations that do provide information typing, for various content types specific to different content disciplines and industries - probably as part of our release of the lightweight specialization architecture that we want to do next.

So then the question is - why release LwDITA before we have those sample specializations and lightweight specialization architecture?

And I think the answer there is - there is value in a starter set, even at the topic level, being defined now. One of the reasons is compatibility with other formats, like Markdown and HTML5.

As Scott said, if it's going to be this simple, why wouldn't they just use Markdown? And the answer is, for many - they already have. So how can we provide a standard that brings groups that are using Markdown back into a DITA community to enable reuse and common processing? Forcing a set of programmers to use C/T/R and XML isn't always going to be an acceptable answer.

Finally, just a thought - if you are happy and productive using full DITA, that's great - but it also means you're not the target audience for Lightweight DITA.

Lightweight DITA isn't intended to replace full DITA, or to be appropriate in every instance that full DITA is. In most cases, organizations that are using full DITA today should probably stay with that.

But for organizations that have balked at using full DITA, either because of an aversion to our out of the box information types, or an aversion to XML, or an aversion to information typing of any kind - Lightweight DITA can provide a starting point for their introduction to a world of structured authoring and an ecosystem of tools and content reuse.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist

From:        Dawn Stevens <dawn.stevens@Comtech-serv.com>
To:        "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        06/23/2017 06:45 PM
Subject:        [dita] Review of Lightweight DITA
Sent by:        <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

Hi all,
In my review of the document and the copious amounts of comments made already, I don’t know that I have anything more to add that hasn’t already been said. I completely agree with most of the comments made by all.

I have my own personal issues that I’m not sure are worth discussing, since I am sure they’ve been debated before and I’m sure people much smarter than me and more experienced in this area have already had these debates. But for the record, here are my bigger issues. If anyone wants to respond to me privately, I’m happy to get more understanding; it certainly feels that I’m the only one who is struggling with these fundamentals, and perhaps it’s just indicative of being late to the party and not really following any of discussions early on since JoAnn was our representative.Thanks,

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