Re: [docbook-tc] RE: [docbook] DocBook Technical Committee MeetingAgenda: 17 June 2009

[Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>]

Hi Gershon,

sorry, I kind of slipped that in there. I was referring to the other 
part of the proposal that wasn't mentioned in the thread: 
<relationships>. I think this approach will be much more powerful than 
the DITA reltables, as you can much more easily model constructs from 
XTM or RDF for more robust relationship descriptions...

Best regards,

--Scott


Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Please see my comments inline below.
>
> Cheers,
> Gershon 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hudson [mailto:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:43 PM
> To: Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)
> Cc: Rowland, Larry; Bob Stayton; DocBook Technical Committee;
> docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] RE: [docbook] DocBook Technical Committee
> Meeting Agenda: 17 June 2009
>
> Thanks for your comments Gershon!
>
> The thought behind separating the resources from the structure is that
> it follows the IMS manifest model, where the resources can be flexibly
> managed apart from the structure, but still delivered in one complete
> package. This also allows the structure to be re-arranged without having
> to adjust the resources.
> <gershon>OK, I'll have to play with this a bit to see how it pans
> out...</gershon>
>
> We don't want to "copy" DITA, but to enable capabilities beyond what
> DITA can provide. This is where the relationships is more powerful, IMO,
> than the reltable approach in DITA.
> <gershon>I know we're not copying DITA, but users coming to DocBook
> (well more accurately, refraining from moving away from DocBook to DITA)
> need to understand what's different and/or what's better from the "DITA
> way". I don't understand your reference to the reltable approach -- I
> didn't see anything to do with link relationship link management in
> Larry's sample. Please could you expand what you mean to imply by this
> statement.</gershon>
>