docbook-tc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [docbook-tc] task as sibling to section [was: DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Agenda: 18 October 2006]
- From: "Gary Cornelius" <gary.cornelius@csw.co.uk>
- To: "DocBook Technical Committee" <docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:37:22 +0100
I also
agree that task is a logical sibling.
For task modelling of applications the
CCT Notation is an excellent reference and tree like. There is an XML
description of the CTT Notation at http://giove.isti.cnr.it/teresa/teresa_xml.html.
I imagine that users will want to document information from the task
models generated from tools like Teresa and that the demand for this will
increase with a lot of recent innovations in tools used for task modelling and
developing systems.
Kind Regards,
Gary
I'm with Paul on this one.
I don't think of <task>
as something that is a logical sibling of <section> or <sect?>.
If we add this, do we also add <concept> as another sibling?
DocBook is a very effective implamentation of a particular model; it can
be customized for other things, but despite the currently somewhat overwhelming
number of elements, it generally models generic block elements, together with
both generic and tech-specific inline elements. The <refentry> and
<reference> elements came out of a long-standing technical model also, and
don't really correspond to the DITA 'reference' element. (At least, I and
others have had trouble adapting DITA 'reference' elements to the needs of
standard refentry-type elements.)
DocBook already has <procedure> as a block element that basically
corresponds to the <steps> element inside a DITA <task>. The DocBook
equivalent to a DITA <task> is probably a <section> - maybe with
'class="task"' - that has nested items (nested <section>
elements?) assigned to the roles of prerequisites, context, results, etc. as
appropriate.
DITA takes
topics, and specializations of topics, as the basic interoperable items.
For DocBook, our users have typically used recursive <section>
elements as the basic interoperable unit of informatin, when they needed to
create extremely modular documentation. I don't want to confuse the issue
by adding another element that breaks the standard DocBook model for dealing
with a need for modular content.
just my $.02
Nancy
"Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote on
10/17/2006 10:40:59 AM:
>
>
> > -----Original
Message-----
> > From: Steven.Cogorno@Sun.COM
[mailto:Steven.Cogorno@Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, 2006 October 16
19:27
> > To: Grosso, Paul
> > Cc: DocBook Technical
Committee
> > Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee
Meeting
> > Agenda: 18 October 2006
> >
> >
>> 9. Unfinished business: RFE 1097183: Allow Task as a
sibling
> > >> of sections
> > >
> > >
I'm opposed to this. Having multiple division-like
> > >
things as siblings is a bad idea, and even if we have
> > > that in
places now, I don't want to make things worse.
> >
> >
> > Can you elaborate why you think it's a bad idea?
>
>
1. It complicates the DTD, making it harder for authors
>
to understand how to mark up their documents.
>
> 2.
It complicates the resulting instances, assuming
> the
authors have used such markup.
>
> 3. It breaks hierarchy,
making things like numbering
> sections difficult (do you
number tasks and sections
> as if they are the same kind of
thing or not?).
>
> 4. It destroys the semantics of what it
means to be a
> section.
>
> and probably more.
My 25 years of experience tells me
> it's the wrong thing to
do.
>
> >
> > > If you want to use DITA, use DITA.
Let's not make a
> > > mess of DocBook.
> >
>
>
> > That's not a productive answer. Technical writing is
quickly
> > becoming very modular. Whether we like it or
not (personally, I'm
> > not a fan), we have to address those
needs if DocBook is to remain a
> > relevant standard.
>
> Well, I think it is a productive answer, but perhaps it's
> too
much shorthand for you to appreciate.
>
> For 20 years now,
SGML/XML has had DTDs with the idea that
> the you use DTDs to model your
data, and if you have different
> data and/or different processing needs,
you make a different model.
>
> CALS came along, and some product
vendors (now mostly extinct)
> developed special applications that just
worked with "the CALS
> DTD", but they missed the point of arbitrary
DTDs.
>
> Then HTML came along, and everyone started cramming all
sorts
> of information into a single DTD, and when that didn't
model
> what they wanted, they invented new tags or fooled with
scripts.
>
> A DTD should reflect the results of an information
analysis for
> a given application or family of similar applications.
DocBook
> has done an excellent job of reflecting the 80/20 needs of
the
> community it was designed to serve as well as optimizing the
>
possibilities of allowing private extensions via parameter
>
entities.
>
> DITA has been developed based on a different
information analysis
> for a different set of applications under different
circumstances.
>
> It makes no sense to look at DITA and try to
incorporate all its
> elements into DocBook. Trying to do so only
ends up complicating
> a DTD that is already so complex it overwhelms
beginning users
> and turns instances written to such a DTD into the
equivalent
> of what we used to call spaghetti code back in my programming
days.
>
> paul
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]